Preamble

The House met at half-past Two o'clock

PRAYERS

[MR. SPEAKER in the Chair]

Oral Answers to Questions — WALES

European Regional Development Fund

Dr. Thomas: To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what is the total amount of support which Wales has received from the European regional development fund during each of the last five years; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Knox: To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what is the total value of grants which Wales has received from the European regional development fund in the past 10 years.

The Secretary of State for Wales (Mr. Peter Walker): Net commitments to Wales from the European regional development fund in the years 1978–87 amounted to £419·7 million; during the last five years the amount was £276·3 million.
I will circulate annual figures in the Official Report.

Mr. Thomas: I am sure the Secretary of State will agree that the investment in the European regional development fund has been important to Wales in the years that he has mentioned. Does he agree that it becomes more important as we look to 1992 and beyond, in the context of the single market?
Does the right hon. Gentleman agree with the views expressed in a report made to the Commission last year that the regional fund should be expanded, particularly to attract private capital investment into regions, to ensure that the objective of the fund — to cope with the problems arising out of the European market—can be met after 1992?

Mr. Walker: Obviously the fund has had an important role to play, and obviously Wales has a considerable interest in the terms and conditions on which it will be operated. I am anxious that the views of the problems of Wales are fully understood by the Commission when its future plans are decided.

Mr. Knox: Can my right hon. Friend assess the consequences for employment of these not inconsiderable grants?

Mr. Walker: Obviously, they are substantial. Some of them are difficult to measure in employment terms, because they have an indirect effect on employment, but such amounts have had a considerable impact on the improving employment position in Wales.

Mr. Rogers: As the Secretary of State well knows, the European funds are linked to what was the treaty of Paris in regard to the Coal and Steel Community, and are now subsumed within the European Community. In view of that link, does he believe that south Wales will be badly affected and that colliery closures will result from the recently announced electricity privatisation plans?

Mr. Walker: No, Sir.

Sir Anthony Meyer: Given the growing importance of the European regional development fund in providing employment in Wales, will my right hon. Friend accept that great importance attaches to the composition of Welsh representation in the European Parliament, and that it is vital that we send there people who really intend to make a success of it?

Mr. Walker: Yes.

Mr. Roy Hughes: May I revert to the inadequate reply given to my hon. Friend the Member for Rhondda (Mr. Rogers)? Is the Secretary of State making any calculations about how much European support will be necessary if the south Wales coalfield is forced to close down as a result of the implementation of the Government's proposals for the electricity supply industry? How real and how serious is his opposition to the proposals? Is he prepared to lay his job on the line, as was suggested in yesterday's Sunday Telegraph?

Mr. Walker: Unlike the hon. Gentleman, I have had the privilege of being a member of Cabinets for most of the past 18 years. If the hon. Gentleman had ever had that privilege, he would understand that he could put forward whatever views he liked, and I am sure that they would be listened to with the enthusiasm and cordiality with which my views are always received.
Following is the information:
Net commitment to Wales from the European regional development fund was £17·1 million in 1978, £21·7 million in 1979, £32·5 million in 1980, £24·8 million in 1981, £43·7 million in 1982, £45·1 million in 1983, £63 million in 1984, £54·9 million in 1985, £59·5 million in 1986 and £53·8 million in 1987.

Rating Reform

Mr. Murphy: To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what recent representations he has received from district councils in Wales, and the Committee of Welsh District Councils, on the implementation of the poll tax in Wales.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Wales (Mr. Ian Grist): My right hon. Friend has received no recent representations.

Mr. Murphy: Does the Minister agree that recent proposals which the Association of District Councils in Wales has put before the Government to spread the burden of the poll tax more evenly among the 37 Welsh districts are the only means by which the effect of the tax can be mitigated for the Welsh? Does he agree that his right hon. Friend's most welcome Valley initiative would be to accept the proposal and so ease the burden of this unjust, unfair and unwanted tax?

Mr. Grist: The hon. Gentleman knows very well, as he is on the Local Government Finance Bill Standing Committee with me, that the needs element of the grants


will take care of the differentiation between the different areas in Wales. As for the rest of his questions, I think that time will have to elapse.

Mr. Nicholas Bennett: I congratulate my hon. Friend on last week's excellent decision to remove caravan parks from community charge and make them non-domestic rated. This will be most welcome in Wales and will help the tourist industry.

Mr. Grist: Indeed, and it proves that it is the Government who are the listening party, not others who make similar claims.

Mr. Barry Jones: Will the Minister and the Secretary of State promise to read carefully today's Daily Post, in which a feature article discusses aspects of the poll tax and says that the Duke of Westminster could be £8,000 a year better off, Lady Pilkington could be £2,000 a year better off and Lord Derby could be £7,000 a year better off? Is it not an immoral tax which enables that to happen when ordinary people must contend with increased prescription charges? Is it not time that the Government withdrew the Local Government Finance Bill?

Mr. Grist: Not at all. The vast majority of people will benefit from the Bill, as the hon. Gentleman knows, and the least well off will be able to benefit from rebates.

Mr. Raffan: In view of the serious effect that the community charge could have on religious orders which have taken a vow of poverty and have no income of their own, will my hon. Friend do his utmost to ensure that they are exempted?
Will he also consider issuing an explanatory leaflet on the community charge to every household in Wales to counteract the lies in Labour's leaflet, which misleadingly states that if people do not register they will not be able to vote?

Mr. Grist: As to the first part of my hon. Friend's question, he will know that the Government are looking into the matter most sympathetically. As to the latter part of his question, I hope that my hon. Friend keeps up his good work in putting the right arguments.

Mr. Wigley: Is the "listening Government" listening to the representations being made about sporting facilities, especially non-commercial sporting facilities, such as indoor squash and tennis courts? Will the Minister assure us that the Government will bring forward an amendment to give a statutory exemption to such facilities, bearing in mind that they are exempting commercial fish farms and open-air sporting facilities?

Mr. Grist: I can give the hon. Gentleman an assurance that that matter is being considered sympathetically.

Mr. Gwilym Jones: Does my hon. Friend agree that if the community charge does not come to pass there will have to be a general revaluation and that the valleys of south Wales will feel the greatest upward effect from it? Is that not a further special reason why we need the community charge as the only practical and fair reform?

Mr. Grist: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. There is an ironic effect. A revaluation would often hit poorer areas rather surprisingly, not least because the areas which in 1973 had highly rated assets of garages and central heating, for example, have recently been overtaken by

much poorer areas which have recently had the same assets installed, so they would find that their rateable values rose fairly rapidly by comparison.

NHS (Funding)

Mr. Ron Davies: To ask the Secretary of State for Wales when he next intends to meet representatives of health authorities in Wales to discuss the funding of the National Health Service; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Peter Walker: I met health authority chairmen in November and discussed a range of funding issues. Revenue funding has increased by 9·1 per cent. for 1987–88 over 1986–87.
My next meeting is likely to take place in June.

Mr. Davies: When the Secretary of State meets representatives from the Mid Glamorgan health authority, will he have anything to offer them to help meet their estimated £3·8 million shortfall during the coming financial year? Is he aware that one of the consequences of his cuts is a nursing shortage which is so severe that, in some geriatric hospitals in Mid Glamorgan, terminally ill patients are being left to face their final hours without any nursing care? Does he not think that we should do something about that?

Mr. Walker: I hope that the hon. Gentleman will bear in mind the cash increase in revenue funding for Mid Glamorgan health authority this year of £10·5 million, or nearly 9 per cent., over the 1986–87 figure, and the growth in recurrent revenue resources from 1978–79 to date, which has increased by nearly 30 per cent.

Mr. Gareth Wardell: Why is the Secretary of State not funding a single intensive care cot anywhere in Wales?

Mr. Walker: From his interest in this subject, the hon. Gentleman knows about the improvement in care for young babies and that the improvement in the mortality rate has been substantial. I hope that that improvement will continue.

Mr. Forth: In the light of improvements in the number of patients treated and the funding which my right hon. Friend has announced, and which is welcome in Wales, is he surprised that some health authorities claim that a crisis has overtaken them without any warning and that they have not done more to deal with the problems which they claim exist? Will he invite those same authorities to submit their positive plans for improvement of the Health Service as part of the review now being undertaken by the Government?

Mr. Peter Walker: Financial budgeting and financial management reviews are taking place and they are extremely important. My hon. Friend mentioned the number of patients being treated, and that is considerable. The number of in-patients treated is 84,000 a year up on the number treated when we took office, and the number of out-patients treated is 76,000 a year up on the number treated when we took office.

Mr. Geraint Howells: Will the Secretary of State consider giving extra financial aid to the East Dyfed health authority so that it can build the second phase of Bronglais hospital at Aberystwyth?

Mr. Walker: All such matters under the capital investment programme come up for discussion, and obviously they will be given proper consideration.

Mr. Alan Williams: I am sure the Secretary of State will recognise that we are discussing the future spending on health in Wales against a background, not just of shortages of nurses and doctors and the lowest number of hospital beds available since the Health Service was set up, but of unforgivable waiting lists. Does the right hon. Gentleman realise that, on the basis of his published spending plans for the next three years, he could spend £230 million more on health in Wales if he achieved only the average annual increase that was achieved under the last Labour Administration? [Interruption.] As the right hon. Gentleman laughs at that, may I put to him a more modest objective? May I point out to him that, astonishingly, he could spend £191 million more if only he—

Mr. Forth: Is this a question?

Mr. Williams: Yes it is. The hon. Gentleman is not a Welsh Member and he should let us ask Welsh questions in our own way.
Does the Secretary of State not realise that he could be spending £191 million more if only he sustained a level achieved by his late, unlamented predecessor? Therefore, does he not appreciate that in Wales—

Mr. Nicholas Bennett: This is is not a question.

Mr. Williams: Yes it is. I have asked a series of questions and I want answers.

Mr. Speaker: Order. But please not too many questions.

Mr. Williams: I have no doubt that you, Mr. Speaker, are directing your comments at the Conservative Benches as well.
Does the Secretary of State not recognise that in Welsh eyes it does not take much to do better than Nicholas Edwards, but it takes either sheer incompetence or wilful neglect to do worse?

Mr. Walker: In the long history of shadow Secretaries of State for Wales there cannot have been a worse one than the present incumbent. I leave the right hon. Gentleman to explain how it was that, in the last year of the Labour Government of which he was a Minister and, therefore, had partial responsibility, waiting lists in Wales increased by more than in any other year in history. It is interesting that he said that there are now fewer beds available, but he did not mention that there are now 4,000 more nurses, many more doctors and many more patients being treated.

Hospitals

Mr. Michael: To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will ensure that consideration of future hospital plans in the counties of Wales involves adequate opportunities for public comment based on full information on (a) the impact on services to patients, (b) the relationship to community medical services and general practice and (c) detailed financial appraisals.

Mr. Grist: This is already accepted policy.

Mr. Michael: I am grateful to the Minister for that reply. Does he share my concern that the financial appraisal that was promised by the South Glamorgan health authority when it launched its plans last October is still not available? That appraisal was promised originally for December, and then for January. In the light of the

delay in providing that financial appraisal, it was promised that there would be an extended period for consultation. Will the Minister press the health authority to expedite the provision of that information, without which, as I am sure the Minister will agree, it is impossible to make sense of the health authority's recommendations?

Mr. Grist: As far as I am aware, the consultation process is proceeding normally. If the hon. Gentleman has a point that he would like to make to me afterwards, I shall be willing to listen.

Mr. Morgan: In relation to the problems of South Glamorgan, will the Minister comment on the severe shortage of cardiology facilities, which occasioned last week's extraordinary announcement that the health authority intended to spend more than £500,000 on contracting out operations to a private sector hospital? Will he comment on that issue, in the light of the fact that, before the 1983 general election, the former Secretary of State promised that cardiology facilities in South Glamorgan — intended to serve the whole of south Wales—would be doubled from their existing level and yet, six years later, that promise has still not been made good?

Mr. Grist: I am a little concerned that the hon. Gentleman will not have a supplementary left for his question 21 on this very subject. It is worth pointing out that South Glamorgan was given £385,000 by the Department in the current year to conclude its programme of 600 operations. We shall wait until the year end to see how South Glamorgan achieves that.

Mr. Gwilym Jones: What would my hon. Friend's attitude be to proposals from specialist companies to build and run a new hospital on the waterfront in Cardiff—or, for that matter, anywhere else—so emulating the excellent success already achieved by the new kidney dialysis units in Wales?

Mr. Grist: With interest, but clearly we would have to consider such a proposal when it arrived.

Mr. Coleman: In light of the criticisms voiced about West Glamorgan health authority's proposals to re-site the Neath general hospital, will the Minister undertake to ensure that when representations are made to him regarding the siting of that hospital the fact that there has not been adequate public consultation is borne very much in mind?

Mr. Grist: Clearly, all representations will be borne in mind, and the hon. Gentleman's views on this matter are well known.

Agricultural Services

Mr. Martyn Jones: To ask the Secretary of State for Wales whether he has any plans to reorganise his Department's agricultural services, in particular in north and mid Wales; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Peter Walker: No, Sir. I consider existing arrangements to be satisfactory for present purposes.

Mr. Jones: I thank the Secretary of State for that answer. However, I am sure he is aware that to keep the services at their present level—in north Wales at least—he needs to keep the Ruthin office, open. Employees at that office are very concerned about the future, bearing in


mind that financial input in new building is needed for that office to remain open and continue to provide a service in its area.

Mr. Walker: I hope that the hon. Gentleman will make inquiries into who has been so enthusiastic in spreading rumours about the closure of the office. There are no plans to close the Ruthin office and it is a great pity that unfounded rumours continue despite the assurances that have been given.

Mr. Livsey: Will the Secretary of State ensure that there are sufficient farm management advisers—the number will need to be increased—to tackle the financial crisis in Welsh family farms, and will he make extra provision for marketing schemes in Wales?

Mr. Walker: Much can be done on the marketing side. Last Friday I had discussions with the WDA about how we could improve still further the marketing of various products from Wales.

Occupational Health Care

Mr. Win Griffiths: To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he is planning any initiatives in the field of occupational health care.

Mr. Grist: Initiatives in work place health care are undertaken on my right hon. Friend's behalf by the Welsh Health Promotion Authority.

Mr. Griffiths: No doubt the Minister will be aware of the trade-union inspired scheme of heart health screening undertaken at RAF St. Athan, in the constituency of the hon. Member for the Vale of Glamorgan (Sir R. Gower). Several of my constituents were involved in that scheme. At £17 the screening is far cheaper than at a BUPA hospital, where it costs £100. Will the Minister consider supporting and extending such schemes across Wales, given that every year five out of every thousand employees die of a heart attack and 6,000 working days are lost at a cost of £200,000?

Mr. Grist: The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right to raise this extremely serious matter. We welcome any such initiatives, and I am glad to say that many employers take advantage of these Welsh heart programme schemes for the benefit of their working people. They include major companies such as Parke Davies, Texaco, British Airways, BICC Power Cables, British Gas (Wales) and the Polytechnic of Wales, and we should like involvement to be much more widespread.

Mr. Raffan: Is my hon. Friend aware that many hon. Members share the concern of the Welsh Health Promotion Authority about the proposed minor role of health education in the national curriculum? Surely my hon. Friend must agree that health education in schools is a wise investment and that prevention is preferable to and more cost effective than cure.

Mr. Grist: Certainly, but that should be a part of the curriculum of life, which I hope all decent schools would teach.

Mr. Rowlands: Is the Minister aware of the important high technology wound dressings made in my constituency? Will he assure the House that lack of resources will not prevent these dressings from being made available

on prescription and thus ameliorating the condition of a large number of people in my constituency and in Britain as a whole?

Mr. Grist: I think the hon. Gentleman knows that the dressing to which he referred is currently being tested.

Bible Translation (400th Anniversary)

Mr. Butler: To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what plans he has to mark the 400th anniversary of the translation of the Bible into Welsh.

The Minister of State, Welsh Office (Mr. Wyn Roberts): Arrangements for numerous events throughout Wales to mark this most important anniversary are being coordinated by a committee chaired by the former Archbishop of Wales, the Right Reverend G. O. Williams. I am very pleased that the Welsh Office has been able to contribute £25,000 towards the costs of the committee.

Mr. Butler: I welcome my hon. Friend's reply. As the Welsh Office co-operated in the new translation of the Bible into Welsh, I trust that that translation will be better than the modern English versions of some liturgical matters.

Mr. Roberts: I am bound to say that we have not contributed to the translation as such. However, I am sure that it will be a good one. We have given a grant of some £7,500 to the Welsh joint education committee to assist local education authorities with the cost of purchasing copies of the new translation.

Mr. John: Would not the best practical way of celebratong Bishop Morgan's translation be the provision of a specific sum of money to provide textbooks in Welsh for A-level subjects such as economics?

Mr. Roberts: That is certainly one of the many ways in which the translation of the Bible might be celebrated. I hasten to assure the hon. Gentleman that we give considerable support to the provision of textbooks and teaching materials.

Dr. Thomas: Since it was an Act of Parliament of 1563 that ordered the Welsh bishops to produce a translation into Welsh, is it not about time that the Welsh Office responded to the consultation on the new Welsh language Act?

Mr. Roberts: The hon. Gentleman knows that it was about 20 years after that Act before the Bible was translated into Welsh. We are consulting. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State is meeting various organisations concerned with the language in Wales. He has set up a group under my chairmanship and we are considering actively the next moves forward with regard to the promotion of the language. Of course, legislation may be one of the options before us.

Labour Statistics

Mr. Gwilym Jones: To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many people were in employment in 1979 and at the latest available date in (a) Cardiff and (b) Wales.

Mr. Peter Walker: The latest available figure for numbers in employment in Wales is 1,021,000 at September 1987. The figure is derived from a Department


of Employment quarterly series of employees and the annual labour force survey of some 3,000 households in Wales. The corresponding figure for September 1979 was 1,160,000. There is no comparable information on employment in Cardiff.

Mr. Jones: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the numbers in employment are at least as valid as the statistics for unemployment? Can he assure me that the surveys to which he referred are sufficiently accurate and that there are now much better rates for finding jobs for the long-term unemployed and school leavers, which are two important areas?

Mr. Walker: It is difficult to assess accurately. The figures are the result of a survey of 3,000 households, which has been the consistent survey over that period of years. On the matter of employment prospects, one of the most interesting figures is the enormous percentage increase that has taken place over the past 15 months in jobs advertised in the main Welsh newspapers.
I am delighted to tell my hon. Friend that the fall in long-term unemployment in Wales over the past 12 months has been greater than in any other region of the country, as has the fall in Welsh youth unemployment.

Mr. Anderson: Has the Secretary of State noticed that the earnings of those in employment in Wales have sunk to next to bottom of the league table in the United Kingdom because of the loss of high-wage steel and coal jobs and their replacement with low-wage, retail, part-time jobs? Is that worrying the Welsh Office and, if so, what is it doing about it? Is it content to see Wales as a low-wage economy?

Mr. Walker: No, Sir. I am delighted, as, no doubt, is the hon. Gentleman, about the substantial number of manufacturing firms that have been opening in Wales during the last period. There is no doubt that the trend, both in service and manufacturing industries, as many more firms come into Wales and many existing firms expand, is very good for earnings in Wales.

Mrs. Clwyd: Will the Secretary of State tell us what prospects there are for my constituents, who have the highest male unemployment rate in Wales? There are no job vacancies registered at the job centre and closure of Lady Windsor colliery at Ynysybwl will push up male unemployment to 34 per cent. Does the right hon. Gentleman not think that the coal industry and the Government have some responsibility for the social consequences in my area when that closure occurs and unemployment reaches those drastic proportions?

Mr. Walker: That is why I am pleased that the Welsh Development Agency will have much more money to spend on advance factories than before. I am pleased that the British Coal Enterprise company is continuing its activities and I know that it will concentrate its activities on those areas where pit closures are taking place.

Mr. Alan Williams: Does the Secretary of State not realise that the figures that he has just announced show that there were 122,000 more people at work in June 1979 than there were in June last year? Indeed, if one leaves out the self-employed, the figure was 170,000 more. Does the right hon. Gentleman not agree—

Mr. Walker: That figure included the self-employed.

Mr. Williams: The right hon. Gentleman was not listening. I gave a figure including the self-employed, and then gave a figure excluding the self-employed. Does he not agree that last week's Government figures show that between June 1983 and June 1987—the period covered by those figures—Wales was the only region in the United Kingdom to see a fall in the combined numbers of employed and self-employed?
With regard to the right hon. Gentleman's point about the unemployment figures. I note that he suddenly switched to the long-term unemployed. Will he confirm that the latest unemployment figures show that over the past 12 months Wales has seen its rate of change fall below that of the national average and trail behind that of five other regions of the United Kingdom?

Mr. Walker: The right hon. Gentleman's desire always to depict—[HON. MEMBERS: "Answer the question"]. He really should have the answers. I am delighted to say that the figures for youth unemployment and for long-term unemployment in Wales were the best of any region in the country in the past 12 months. [Interruption.] I am also delighted to say that 1987 was a year of record inward investment. The right hon. Gentleman is now becoming the one lonely voice in Wales who thinks that things are going badly for Wales.

Water Rates

Mr. Flynn: To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what percentage of the average domestic and industrial water rate bill for 1988–89 is attributable to (a) Welsh water authority financial targets having to be above break-even, (b) current cost accounting having to be used in place of long-term loans, (c) Welsh water having to bear the cost of paying the capital and interest repayments on the debt of £450 million and (d) the cost of raising beach bathing cleanliness standards to EEC limits.

Mr. Grist: The assessment of water charges is a matter for the Welsh water authority. The authority estimates that the information asked for is as follows: (a) 16 per cent., (b) 15 per cent., (c) 24 per cent., and (d) 4 per cent.

Mr. Flynn: The large sum, almost £20, added to the bills of every ratepayer in Wales as a result of the changes in domestic rate relief means that way over half the total cost of rate bills in Wales is due to Government policy. Will the Minister admit that the Government have imposed on Welsh water ratepayers a financial straitjacket that is entirely artificial and contrived? The figure has increased by more than twice the rate of inflation for many years now. When will the Government stop this long-running confidence trick against the payers of water rates in Wales and introduce a little fairness into the system?

Mr. Grist: I believe that the Welsh water authority, as run at present, is a great success for the people of Wales. In the Welsh water authority we inherited, in many cases, ill-run facilities. Under the Government capital expenditure in the authority has risen by 33 per cent., compared with 11 per cent. under the Labour Government. If one considers why charges have sometimes increased, one finds that it is because that investment was ignored in the past.

Mr. Alan W. Williams: Does the Minister agree with the way in which the charges have been levied? There was a whopping increase of over 20 per cent. in standing charges,


as a result of which rich people have a proportionally lower increase, whereas poorer households have a 20 per cent. increase in their water charges this year.

Mr. Grist: The hon. Gentleman is right to say that the Welsh water authority is implementing as a policy the raising of the standing charge element until it represents 50 per cent. of the average bill, which reflects the fact that 90 per cent. of all costs are fixed.

Mr. Roy Hughes: Does the Minister appreciate that his answers are unsatisfactory? Does he realise, for instance, that in recent years charges in Newport have increased by 2,500 per cent. and that standing charges in Wales will soon be the highest in Britain—£36 compared with £6 in Yorkshire? Can the hon. Gentleman not see how this is damaging industry, let alone causing hardship for households? When will he get rid of this complacency and do something about this dreadful situation?

Mr. Grist: I do not think that it is a matter of complacency that the Welsh water authority should be run economically and efficiently. That is precisely what the Government have been ensuring.

Mr. Wigley: Does the Minister accept that the financial targets could be reached with far lower charges for consumers if the Welsh water authority did not have an enormous historic debt around its neck? Will the hon. Gentleman confirm that the first thing that the Government will do with privatisation is to write off that debt? Why not do it now, so that consumers can get the benefits?

Mr. Grist: I had hoped that the hon. Gentleman would understand that, if the charges, which are rising this year by 8 per cent., were cut the investment needs of the Welsh water authority would have to be met from further borrowing, which would raise the debt interest that the Welsh water authority has to pay in the future.

Labour Statistics

Mr. Roy Hughes: To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what are the latest unadjusted figures for unemployment in (a) Newport, (b) Gwent and (c) Wales; and if he will give the equivalent figures for 1979 on the most nearly comparable basis.

Mr. Peter Walker: On 14 January 1988 the numbers of unemployed claimants in Newport district, Gwent and Wales were 8,071, 23,451 and 148,477 respectively. Unadjusted figures for 1979 are not available on a basis that enables a valid comparison to be made.

Mr. Hughes: When will the Secretary of State realise that, despite all the trumpet-blowing and all the massaging of the statistics, these unemployment figures are still appalling? Although we welcome the setting up of the Patent Office in Newport, does the right hon. Gentleman appreciate that that will be of little benefit overall if we lose the Passport Office? When will the right hon. Gentleman sort out the issue of premises for that valuable establishment?

Mr. Walker: I thank the hon. Gentleman for his usual optimistic and eager response. The unemployment figures for Wales are still exceedingly bad and great progress needs to be made. I know how the hon. Gentleman will rejoice in the knowledge that in the past 12 months there

has been the biggest fall in unemployment in Wales since the war, that the number of WDA lettings and number of inward investment firms have broken all-time records, and that not just the Patent Office but the Trustee Savings bank, with 2,000 jobs, have decided to go to Newport. In the interests of Newport, it is time that the hon. Gentleman cheered up.

Mr. Ray Powell: Does the Secretary of State appreciate that only when he can report to us and the nation that unemployment in Wales is the same level as in 1979, when the right hon. Gentleman and his Government took office, can we start waving our daffodils on St. David's day, which is tomorrow, and the day when we should have our debate instead of on Wednesday?

Mr. Walker: I very much agree with the hon. Gentleman. I shall not even be satisfied when unemployment reaches the 1979 figures. As the hon. Gentleman knows, under the Labour Government, unemployment increased substantially too.

Sir Anthony Meyer: Does my right hon. Friend accept that there will be great disappointment if the trend is the same as in 1979—inexorably upwards?

Mr. Walker: Yes. There was an upward trend in unemployment. Unemployment in Wales has increased considerably, so I shall not be content with the 1979 figures with which the hon. Member for Ogmore (Mr. Powell) would be satisfied.

Common Agricultural Policy

Mr. Ieuan Wyn Jones: To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will make a statement on the implications for the Welsh farming industry of the decisions of the European Community Brussels summit regarding reform of the common agricultural policy.

Mr. Peter Walker: The stabiliser arrangements will have an impact on future trends in agriculture, but the impact on Welsh agriculture will be particularly affected by future negotiations.

Mr. Jones: Is the Secretary of State aware of the considerable anxiety in Wales as a result of the recent Brussels agreement, particularly about the effect of stabilisers on the sheep sector? Will the Secretary of State now make it clear that he will not just consider representing, but will represent, the interests of our farmers in any future talks in Brussels, so that we can ensure that the sheepmeat regime is kept intact? Will he further agree with me that the European regional and social fund must be expanded to ensure that rural areas in Wales can benefit from diversification schemes?

Mr. Walker: It is obvious that the future income for sheep and beef producers is of fundamental importance for Wales, so in all Community and national negotiations I shall play a full and eager part.

Mr. Nicholas Bennett: Will my right hon. Friend bear in mind that the considerable hardship facing Welsh farmers is due to the disparity in the green pound? When the next farm price review comes round, will he press his right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food to bear the special problems of Wales very much in mind?

Mr. Peter Walker: I understand my hon. Friend's concern, and I know that it is a matter that my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture is considering carefully.

Oral Answers to Questions — CHURCH COMMISSIONERS

Rating Reform

25. Mr. Allen: To ask the right hon. Member for Selby, as representing the Church Commissioners, what further representations the commissioners have received from (a) clergy and (b) tenants or leaseholders of the commissioners regarding the effects of the proposed poll tax.

Mr. Michael Alison (Second Church Estates Commissioner, representing Church Commissioners): The commissioners have no responsibility for the rates on properties let to tenants and leaseholders, and have received no representations from them. They continue to receive letters from clergy and church members about the loss of charitable relief on clergy accommodation and the financial implications which the Government's proposals pose for the Churches.

Mr. Allen: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that there is outrage among the clergy in Nottingham and among the other religious denominations which will be hit very hard by the poll tax? They will have none of the relief on rates currently available, and they will suffer for it. Will the right hon. Gentleman tell us whether there are likely to be concessions or exemptions for Anglican and other clergy? If there are, will he ask for them to be extended to old-age pensioners in my constituency, who will also suffer under the poll tax?

Mr. Alison: I hope that the hon. Member will reassure at least the Anglican clergy whom he represents that it is unlikely that they will have to pay the community charge, any more than at present they pay rates. I am afraid that I cannot speak about the prospects for non-conformist clergy, but I have no doubt that the leaders of the non-conformist denominations will probably follow the pattern of the Church of England.

Mr. Forth: Does my hon. Friend agree that where someone, cleric or otherwise, has the vote, uses local services and receives an income of some kind, it is quite right and proper that he should be asked to pay the same contribution to local government finances as any one else?

Mr. Alison: Yes. There is no question but that the community charge will be paid. At present, under the existing rating system, clergy are internally exempted, in that the Church Commissioners pay the rates. Under the community charge, the likelihood is that it will be paid direct on their behalf.

Mr. Campbell-Savours: Why does the hon. Gentleman not have a word with his right lion. Friend the Minister of State, Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food? Why does he not put it to him that he should stop bellyaching and knocking the Church and the bishops, and spend a bit more time meeting the needs of the farmers?

Mr. Speaker: Order. The question is about the poll tax. I do not think that that arises.

Mr. Alison: If I have any communication with my right hon. Friend the Minister of State I shall find myself' answering questions about mangel-wurzels. I do not want to have to do that.

Clergymen

Mr. John Marshall: To ask the right hon. Member of Selby, as representing the Church Commissioners, what has been the number of clergymen in each of the past 10 years.

Mr. Alison: The total number of full-time stipendiary clergymen at the end of 1978 was 11,409; at the end of 1987 there were 10,624. In 1987 the first women deacons were ordained, increasing the total of full-time stipendiary clergy to 11,063. I shall arrange for full details to be published in the Official Report.

Mr. Marshall: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the vast bulk of the clergy work long and anti-social hours, often with little material reward? Does he agree also that one of the functions of the clergy—and, one hopes, of the bishops — further is to give a moral lead to their congregations? Does he further agree that, as one would not expect a bishop to sponsor adulterers for ordination, one can agree with those bishops who are refusing to sponsor practising homosexuals?

Mr. Alison: The Church Commissioners have no direct responsibility for ordination, selection or training. It is unlikely that an avowedly practising homosexual would be recommended for ordination or ordained by a bishop in the Church of England. It would scarcely be compatible with a clergyman's pastoral duties for the teaching of Christian personal ethics to recommend ordination.

Following is the information:


Full-time stipendiary clergymen


Year
Number at end of year


1978
11,409


1979
11,279


1980
11,053


1981
10,882


1982
10,789


1983
10,807


1984
10,749


1985
10,672


1986
10,649


1987
10,624

Oral Answers to Questions — HOUSE OF COMMONS

Select Committees

Mr. Allen: To ask the hon. Member for Berwick upon Tweed, as representing the House of Commons Commission, what will be the total spending by each Select Committee on overseas visits by the end of financial year 1987–88; and what submissions were made by each committee to justify their journey.

Mr. A. J. Beith (On behalf of the House of Commons Commission): It is anticipated that the gross total outturn for 1987–88 for overseas travel will be the £290,865. I shall arrange for the total for each Committee to be published in the Official Report. The Commission has no knowledge of submissions made by individual Committees, as responsibility for deciding on such submissions within the budget determined by the Commission has been delegated to the Liaison Committee.

Mr. Allen: I am not one of those hon. Members who feel that hon. Members should never travel abroad.
Anything that broadens the minds of hon. Members. particularly of Conservative Members, is welcome. However, will the hon. Gentleman concede that for hon. Members to go abroad with no programme of work, but just a desire to go abroad, brings an honourable system into disrepute? It may be seen as being part of a free-trips policy, with which I am sure hon. Members would not wish to be associated. In future, will the hon. Gentleman try to ensure that before hon. Members go abroad on Select Committee visits, the Select Committee has put forward a sensible programme of work to him, which should include the reasons for the visit?

Mr. Beith: a: Some time ago the Commission took the decision that these matters were best dealt with by the Liaison Committee, to which each Committee must defend its proposed visits. The House has seen fit to set up Select Committees and give them responsibilities, which include considering the overseas activities of Government Departments and the implications for the House of matters that take place overseas. It is now the job of the Liaison Committee to spend appropriately within a budget on that work.

Mr. Holt: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that the opposite of broad-mindedness is narrow-mindedness? It would not be in the best interests of Parliament or the Government if the House were to adopt the policies that the hon. Member for Nottingham, South (Mr. Allen) has espoused. Insulting remarks have been directed towards the Chairmen of Committees, but those Chairmen go to a great deal of trouble to ensure that the work is correct for those who go overseas and that reports that the Committees make to the House are in the best interests of everyone.

Mr. Beith: The Liaison Committee is chaired by the right hon. Member for Worthing (Mr. Higgins), who takes these considerations into account very carefully when doing his work.

Mr. McLoughlin: Will the hon. Gentleman say whether this expenditure on Select Committees is a record? As they were set up so late, they seem to have got through a remarkable amount of money.

Mr. Beith: The total amount budgeted for has increased by roughly no more than the rate of inflation year by year, but the Commission has taken the view that the expenditure for the current year should be underspent in view of the late time in the Session that the Committees were set up. No doubt, when the total outturn is seen, that will be taken into account by the Commission when looking at next year's total.

Following is the information:


The gross total expenditure expected to be incurred by each select committee on overseas travel in financial year 1987–88 is as follows:


Select Committees
Projected year
ending out-turn



£



Agriculture
34,511
(316)


Defence
26,982
(2,160)


Education Science and Arts
10,043
(10,043)


Employment
31,821
(1,920)


Environment
10,872
—


European Legislation
28,993
(1,730)


Foreign Affairs
42,616
(748)


Home Affairs
15,139
(206)


Procedure
31
(31)





Select Committees
Projected year
ending out-turn



£



Social Services
2,235
(2,235)


Trade and Industry
49,142
(4,788)


Transport
38.164
(32)


Treasury and Civil Service
316
(316)



£290,865
(24,525)

Notes:

The figures in brackets show expenditure incurred in respect of visits made prior to 31 March 1987, which has been brought to account in the current financial year. Much of the rest of the projected expenditure comprises estimates of the cost of overseas travel not yet undertaken but planned for the period up to 31 March. Actual expenditures may eventually be somewhat lower, depending on the number of persons travelling.

Oral Answers to Questions — WALES

Labour Statistics

Mr. Barry Jones: To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what is the number of unemployed in Wales at the latest date; what it was in May 1979; and what is the total and percentage increase.

The Secretary of State for Wales (Mr. Peter Walker): The seasonally adjusted numbers of unemployed claimants in Wales at May 1979 and January 1988 were 73,100 and 137,700 respectively, which I am pleased to say has decreased by 21 per cent. over the past 20 months.

Mr. Jones: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that Alyn and Deeside district council is experiencing problems in obtaining control over the site of the redundant Connah's Quay power station? Does the right hon. Gentleman know that it is estimated that £50 million would be needed to recommission this redundant power station? Is he aware that the fixed costs of staying connected to the grid would be prohibitive? Does he agree that this site is very important for my council for economic and social reasons? Will he help that district council?

Mr. Walker: That is a matter for the commercial judgment of the CEGB. I understand that the board will judge all proposals on their merits, given its statutory duties. I cannot interfere with those statutory duties.

Sir Raymond Gower: Is it not an advantage that people in Wales are now employed in a wide variety of industry, whereas some years ago they were employed in two or three major industries which were susceptible to a very large decline in manpower?

Mr. Walker: Yes. I believe that the two main industries concerned — coal and steel — are in a position of considerable strength for the future. The decline in manpower in those industries is certainly coming to an end. That will greatly strengthen future trends in the Welsh economy.

Mr. Win Griffiths: As the Secretary of State had to shout previously, will he tell us exactly when unemployment in Wales will be below the figures for 1979? It has been on a downward trend for a long time.

Mr. Walker: As the hon. Gentleman knows, there has been an enormous decline in the numbers employed in the coal and steel industries. I am glad to say that the figures that I have given show an enormous increase in employment during the past 20 months. That trend is


continuing. With the capital investment programme of the WDA and the present inward investment, I hope that that trend will continue.

Oral Answers to Questions — LORD PRESIDENT OF THE COUNCIL

Televised Proceedings

Mr. Favell: To ask the Lord President of the Council what representations he has received concerning the proposed televising of the House.

The Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. John Wakeham): I have received representations from a number of sources, including right hon. and hon. Members.

Mr. Favell: During the recent debate my right hon. Friend said that he had had preliminary discussions with the broadcasters about editorial control. Have there been any further discussions with broadcasters on that subject? In view of the influence that television is having on the American presidential primaries, is it not clear that television is the most powerful medium of all and that the possibility of it slanting a debate one way or another makes it a powerful tool?

Mr. Wakeham: I am sure that my hon. Friend is right. These matters are within the scope of the Select Committee's remit, and obviously the Select Committee will want to address its mind to them. The House will have the opportunity to consider the Select Committee's recommendations in due course.

Mr. Beith: Is it not vital that sufficient time is made available on the air for coverage to enable professional editors fairly to represent the opinions within the House that are presented in debate?

Mr. Wakeham: The hon. Gentleman is right. I do not think that the amount of time the broadcasters choose to use for television broadcasting is a matter for me.

Mr. Stokes: In spite of all the difficulties involved, does my right hon. Friend agree that now is the time for all hon. Members, whether or not they voted for the proposal to televise the House, to make the best they can of the new situation, or at worst to engage in damage limitation?

Mr. Wakeham: As is so often the case, my hon. Friend speaks for the whole House.

Mr. Boyes: The Lord President of the Council will be aware that many hon. Members believe that the absence of photographs in the House is deplorable. Now that television cameras will be let into the Chamber, will he consider allowing photographers into the Chamber to take pictures? If such representations are made, will he or the Select Committee consider them?

Mr. Wakeham: The Committee, in arranging for the conducting of an experiment in public broadcasting, will have quite enough work without considering the hon. Gentleman's point. Perhaps we shall have to consider that matter in some other way.

Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman: Has my right hon. Friend watched the televising of the House of Lords, and has he noticed that when controversial Bills are under discussion the commentators do not leave the viewers to

decide for themselves, but add such comments as "This is the fifth speaker against the Government."? That is quite unnecessary—[Interruption.]

Mr. Speaker: Order. The House must let the hon. Lady finish her question.

Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman: The commentator may well say, "This is the fifth speaker against the Bill.". Is that not editing of the worst order? It should be up to the listeners to judge for themselves.

Mr. Wakeham: I am sure that if the House were to be televised the public would expect there to be a balance for and against the Government in any broadcast. Such matters are highly relevant to the work of the Select Committee.

Strangers' Gallery

Mr. Tony Banks: To ask the Lord President of the Council how many admission orders were issued for entry to the Public Gallery in the most recent Session for which figures are available.

Mr. Wakeham: Since parliamentary Sessions vary in length, I hope that the hon. Gentleman will find it helpful if I give him the average annual figure over the past three calendar years 1985–87, which is 160,201 admission orders.

Mr. Banks: I am grateful to the Lord Presient of the Council for his reply. What steps is he taking to encourage more visits to the Strangers' Gallery? Is it not about time that we opened some real public restaurants and facilities in this place? That would encourage people to come here and could, indeed, turn the Palace of Westminster into a real people's palace. Even if televising the House of Commons turned into the most boring show on earth, which I doubt, given the experience in the House of Lords, even one night's broadcast of what goes on in this place would reach more people than could visit the Stangers' Gallery over about four or five years.

Mr. Wakeham: With hon. Members getting tickets in rotation — two orders every nine days — if the hon. Gentleman has any spare tickets, I am happy to make use of them for my constituents. Most hon. Members could deal with more admission orders than they currently get. The Galleries are well used without the attractions that the hon. Gentleman suggests.

Mr. Andrew MacKay: Will my right hon. Friend confirm that hon. Members are responsible for members of the public for whom they obtain tickets for the Strangers' Gallery? It is their responsibility when they misbehave. What action has he taken against hon. Members when it is quite obvious that they have allowed into the Strangers' Gallery people who intend to demonstrate?

Mr. Wakeham: I am sure that the House will expect any hon. Member who facilitates a member of the public going into the Strangers' Gallery to hold himself responsible for the conduct of that person, in so far as he is able to do so. What action should be taken against any hon. Member who, by neglect or other means, lets into the House somebody whom he should not let in is not a matter for me.

Mr. Dalyell: There is desperate pressure for tickets. Has the Lord President of the Council ever looked up to the


Strangers' Gallery, just before 3 o'clock, and seen many empty seats? Our colleagues have to queue from 2 o'clock onwards to get tickets. It is not the case that, too often, with the system of rotational tickets, colleagues on both sides of the House pocket their tickets in case they want to use them, find that they do not need them, and forget to return them to the Admission Order Office, while people who really want tickets cannot get them? Should not the rotational system be looked at?

Mr. Wakeham: The hon. Gentleman has raised this matter in the past. On many days, all admission orders are issued. The time until 3 pm is allowed for those visitors whose arrival has been delayed. At 3 pm, any unoccupied seats are allocated to people waiting in the public queue. That is the general system. It has worked to most people's satisfaction, but if the hon. Gentleman thinks that it should be looked at, I shall see what can be done.

Oral Answers to Questions — WALES

Job Creation

Sir Anthony Meyer: To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many jobs have been provided in Wales during the last period of 12 months for which figures are available by firms based outside the United Kingdom.

The Secretary of State for Wales (Mr. Peter Walker): Inward investment projects from outside the United Kingdom secured during 1987 are planned to create or safeguard 5,161 jobs. These were 59 projects, which is an all-time record.

Sir Anthony Meyer: From those figures, and the figures for preceding years, is it not clear that Wales was, and remains, exceptionally attractive to inward investors? Will my right hon. Friend continue his extremely successful efforts to attract still further investment in the Principality?

Mr. Walker: I am pleased to say that the available figures for 1987 show that Wales was the leading region in the United Kingdom for attracting inward investment.

Psychiatric Treatment (Powys)

Mr. Livsey: To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will make a statement on arrangements for the provision of psychiatric hospital treatment in Powys.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Wales (Mr. Ian Grist): The provision of psychiatric hospital treatment in Powys is a matter for the Powys health authority in the first instance.

Mr. Livsey: Does the Minister agree that because of the present enlightened conditions in psychiatric hospitals patients are far better treated there than in the community? Will he insists that Powys health authority keeps the same number of beds in the Mid Wales hospital at Talgarth as it has now?

Mr. Grist: On the latter part of the hon. Gentleman's question, that must be a matter for the local health authority. On the first part, he must await the Welsh Office mental illness strategy, which will be published soon.

Business of the House

The Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons Mr. John Wakeham): With permission Mr. Speaker, I should like to make a short statement about the rearranged business for this week:
TUESDAY 1 MARCH—Until about seven o'clock, motions on a Social Security Order and Regulations. Details are in the Official Report.
Resumption of the adjourned debate on the Northern Ireland (Emergency Provisions) Acts 1978 and 1987 (Continuance) Order.
Motion on the Appropriation (Northern Ireland) Order.
WEDNESDAY 2 MARCH—There will be a debate on Welsh affairs on a motion for the Adjournment of the House.
Motions on the Coal Industry (Restructuring Grants) and (Limit on Deficit Grants) Orders.
Motion on the annual report from the European Court of Auditors for 1986. Details are in the Official Report.
The business for the remainder of the week remains unchanged.

Mr. Frank Dobson: I thank the Leader of the House for his statement and welcome the opportunity to continue the debate on the Northern Ireland (Emergency Provisions) Acts order, but my colleagues from Scotland and Wales believe that they have not been treated quite as fairly. It appears that the business this week can be changed at the drop of a hat, yet Scottish Members are expected to debate the order on Paisley grammar school at some ungodly hour tonight. If the business for tomorrow could be changed so swiftly to accommodate the needs of Northern Ireland, my right hon. and hon. Friends from Wales believe that it could have been adjusted to enable the debate on Welsh affairs to be held on St. David's day. Apparently it was impossible to make the adjustment last week, but this announcement shows that it would have been possible to make the adjustment this week.

Mr. Wakeham: I thought that I had done pretty well to get the Welsh affairs debate as near to St. David's day as I have done. Before the hon. Gentleman continues in this tone, I suggest that he examines the record of the Labour Government, who often failed to provide time for a debate on Welsh affairs at this time of the year.

Mr. James Molyneaux: Does the Leader of the House agree that, far from giving preferential treatment to Northern Ireland business, the change resulted from a certain amount of bungling by hon. Members on both Front Benches?

Mr. Wakeham: No. The change resulted from an initiative that I took. The House wanted a statement on a major matter, which meant that the time allocated to the Northern Ireland debate, which would otherwise have been satisfactory, was not enough. I thought that the House generally welcomed my action.

Sir John Biggs-Davison: While thanking my right hon. Friend for so promptly and graciously acceding to the wishes of Back-Bench Members on both sides of the House for more time to debate the emergency powers, may I ask whether the necessity to alter

the business does not bring out forcefully the unsatisfactory manner in which Northern Ireland business has been handled since the abolition of Stormont?

Mr. Wakeham: I appreciate that hon. Members on both sides of the House believe that our handling of Northern Ireland business is less than ideal, but I have no proposals to change it now.

Dr. Dafydd Elis Thomas: I assure the Leader of the House that the attachment of Plaid Cymru Members to Wales is not sentimental, so whether the debate takes place on St. David's day, the day before or the day after is immaterial. The important thing is to have regular debates, unlike the position under some Labour Administrations — [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] Before Conservative Members cheer too much, may I ask the Leader of the House to confirm that the debate will be wide-ranging and that there will be no problems about ministerial arid departmental responsibility for the subjects covered in the debate? Will the debate cover the role of all Government Departments in Wales, and will the Secretary of State for Wales be free to comment on the activities of the Department of Energy?

Mr. Wakeham: The debate will be on the Adjournment, and that is as wide a basis as possible for a debate in the House. Whether what the hon. Gentleman says is in order will be a matter for you, Mr. Speaker, not for me.

Mr. Paul Flynn: As some compensation for the slight to Welsh Members, will the Leader of the House consider making arrangements so that in future debates in this place and elsewhere we can discuss the affairs of our country in both the languages of our country? Many of the debating chambers throughout the world succeed in debating in two, three, and sometimes as many as 10, languages. Surely it is within the realms of possibility that in this House, perhaps on an experimental basis at first, we can arrange to debate in both the languages of Wales.

Mr. Wakeham: I have no plans for that at the moment, but if the hon. Gentleman is so sensitive that he considers it a slight to have the Welsh debate on 2 March, he must be positively insulted by the record of the previous Labour Government.

Mr. Eric Forth: As there are more people living in the west midlands than in Wales, and as more languages are spoken in the west midlands than in Wales, does my right hon. Friend agree that the Welsh get far more time in the House than those representing the west midlands, and that it is high time that that was reversed?

Mr. Wakeham: I have no plans to reverse it next week, but I take my hon. Friend's point.

Mr. Greville Janner: Perhaps the Leader of the House knows that many of us who were born in Wales would associate ourselves with the views that have been expressed about Wednesday.
As the business of the House for tomorrow is being changed, and as it has been announced that the Secretary of State for Defence is giving a written answer today to a question by the hon. Member for Cambridge (Mr. Rhodes James) about the British commandos sent to their death by Waldheim's unit, is there any chance of a statement being made either before or after tomorrow's business,


because the matters raised in that written question are immensely important? The families of those commandos are still alive, and one of them wrote to me yesterday. They are extremely concerned. It is now clear that not only Waldheim but his family have been involved in those matters in a way that should be brought before the House in a statement, not in a written answer.

Mr. Wakeham: My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister has been forthcoming about the Government's attitude to these matters. I cannot promise a statement, but I shall refer the matter to my right hon. Friend.

National Health Service (Charges)

The Minister for Health (Mr. Tony Newton): With permission, Mr. Speaker, I should like to make a statement about voucher values for spectacles, blood glucose testing strips, and NHS charges from 1 April 1988.
First, on spectacle voucher values, help with the cost of spectacles through the NHS voucher scheme is available to children under 16, full-time students under 19, people on low incomes and those needing complex lenses. The current voucher values were set when the voucher scheme was introduced on 1 July 1986. We have decided to increase them from 1 April 1988 so that, for example, the lowest voucher value will rise by nearly 9 per cent. from £14·25 to £15·50 and the highest voucher value by 28 per cent. from £66 to £85. In the hospital eye service there will be small increases in the maximum charges, which limit the charges to those requiring expensive lenses but not entitled to vouchers, and no increase in the charge for contact lenses.
In setting the new values we have sought to repond to the representations of the Royal National Institute for the Blind by making particularly large increases in vouchers for the more complex spectacles. We also propose a number of other changes to assist with special needs, on which representations have been made. Over and above standard voucher values, there will be a new supplement in the hospital eye service of up to £4 for people prescribed photochromic lenses for clinical reasons and a new supplement of £30 for those whose particular facial characteristics entail specially made frames. There will also be a new supplement of £30 for children who need exceptionally small glasses, available through the general ophthalmic service and the hospital eye service.
The voucher scheme is at present available for contact lenses only if they are prescribed for clinical reasons by the hospital eye service. We propose to end this restriction and to give complete freedom of choice at to whether vouchers are used for spectacles or for contact lenses.
These changes will increase expenditure on the voucher scheme by about £7 million in 1988–89, to a total of more than £65 million.
Secondly, blood glucose testing strips for diabetics. We announced last November our intention to bring about a further improvement in services for diabetics by making such strips available on general practitioner prescription, following the similar action we took last year in respect of disposable syringes for those who need to inject insulin.
Discussions have now been held with the suppliers of the strips, and I am pleased to be able to tell the House that they will be made available on prescription from 1 June this year. Diabetics are, of course, exempt from prescription charges and will therefore receive their supplies free of charge. The cost of this measure in 1988–89 will be around £8 million.
Thirdly, we propose to increase prescription charges broadly in line with the increased cost of medicines. The item charge will rise by 20p from £2.40 to £2.60, an increase of around 8 per cent. The four-monthly season ticket will increase by £1 to £13.50, and the annual season ticket by £2.50 to £37.50. We estimate that the increases will yield over £10 million in 1988–89.
Over three quarters of all items will, of course, continue to be dispensed free of charge under the wide-ranging


exemption arrangements, which cover children, those on low incomes, and everyone over retirement age. The House will also be glad to know that we propose to extend the exemptions for young people to include those under the age of 19 while they remain in full-time education.
Fourthly, dental charges. As the House knows, we have already announced our intention to move from the present complex and anomalous system of charging for dental treatment to a straightforward system of proportionate charging set at 75 per cent. Of the cost, subject to a maximum of £150. This new arrangement will apply to all routine dental treatment and crowns from 1 April 1988, and the charges for dentures and bridges will be set as fixed cash amounts at or about the same 75 per cent. level.
We estimate that the changes will yield additional income of about £17 million in 1988–89. However, as many people now pay the full cost of the more limited courses of routine treatment, the cost of many such courses will, in fact, fall. For example, the charge for a scale and polish and two small fillings will come down from £14.20 to £10.65.
We are retaining all the current exemptions — for children, young people aged 16 and 17, students under 19, expectant and nursing mothers and people on low incomes—which mean that nearly half of all courses of dental treatment attract no charge at all. In addition, we intend to bring forward a Government amendment at the Report stage of the Health and Medicines Bill to end the anomaly whereby some young people of 16 and 17, while exempt from charges for treatment, nevertheless have to pay for dentures and bridges. The effect, if the House agrees, will be to exempt them from all dental charges.
In view of the changes to social security benefits that will come into effect on I1 April, I should make it clear to the House that, for the purposes of exemption from prescription and dental charges, of entitlement to spectacle vouchers and of reimbursement of expenses incurred in travelling to hospital for treatment, receipt of income support or family credit will qualify beneficiaries in the same way as supplementary benefit or family income supplement do now. There will also continue to be arrangements for assisting other people on low incomes, based on the new social security framework. Regulations will be laid before the House in due course to establish a single consolidated scheme, which will be both simpler and speedier than with the present arrangements.
Lastly, charges for private patients and overseas visitors. Increases in the central list of charges for private patients, averaging about 6·5 per cent., have already been announced. Charges for overseas visitors will also be increased for 1988–89, by 8·1 per cent. on average for inpatients and 6·5 per cent for out-patients.
Details of the proposed new spectacles voucher values, the prescription and dental charges and the charges for overseas visitors are available in the Vote Office. Regulations giving them effect will be laid before the House shortly. Equivalent measures will be taken by my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland and my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland.

Mr. Robin Cook (Livingston): I should like to give an unqualified welcome to two items in the statement—for both of which the Opposition have pressed. The first is that blood glucose testing strips will be available on prescription. This will be welcomed in all quarters of the

House. The second is the announcement that there will be an additional exemption of dental charges for 16 and 17-year-olds, an issue which, the Minister will agree, my hon. Friend the Member for Peckham (Ms. Harman) and her colleagues have been pressing in Committee.
I should like to give a qualified welcome to the announcement on vouchers for spectacles. It is qualified, first, because, as the Minister knows, we are in this difficulty about more complex spectacles only because the Government privatised the entire optical service and, secondly, because the increase in the lower voucher charge is about £1·25, which, the Minister will admit, is less than the likely increase in the price of spectacles from the imposition of VAT, which is calculated to cost another £2 or £3 per pair of spectacles. If the Government intend to accept that European decision, the least that the House might have expected was that they would protect the poorest purchasers of spectacles from its effect.
The Minister will appreciate that his statement will be judged by the fact that this is the tenth increase in prescription charges since the Government came to office. The Minister attempted to defend the increase by saying that it represented the increase in the cost of medicines. Is he aware that the prescription charge is now 13 times the prescription charge of 1979—an increase wildly in excess of the increase in the cost of medicines in the intervening period?
Is the Minister aware that last year the Pharmaceutical Services Negotiating Committee estimated that, after last year's increase, one third of the items available on prescription cost less than the face value of the prescription charge? Will the Minister confirm that, as a result of the increase, many drugs will be cheaper to obtain at the retail price than on an NHS prescription? Does he agree that the exemptions to which he referred do not include chronic conditions, such as cystic fibrosis, asthma, Parkinson's disease, multiple sclerosis and schizophrenia, and that it is wholly wrong that people who suffer from chronic conditions which require significant medication should have to pay for their presccription charges?
I remind the Minister of the statement of the chairman of the Pharmaceutical Services Negotiating Committee that 2,000 people forgo part of their prescriptions every week because they cannot afford the charges. Is that not what the Minister would have expected, as an advocate of the law of supply and demand? Is it not precisely the effect that he would have predicted—people responding to an increase in prices by taking up fewer treatments? Is it not entirely wrong that they should be priced out of the treatment that they need?
The Minister concluded by referring to the 6·5 per cent. increase in charges for pay beds. Will he admit that the Government's policy on pay beds has been a commercial disaster? Is he aware that since 1979 the Government have increased the number of pay beds by one fifth—in sharp contrast to the cut in the number of NHS beds—and that the number of patients in pay beds has gone down by one third, while the bad debts from private pay bed patients last year alone reached £800,000? Against that background, is it not entirely fanciful for the Minister to suggest that the NHS can generate income from an activity that is a net loss to the service?
On the subject of charges to patients, will the Minister comment on the recent practice in Merton and Sutton district health authority, which has introduced charges for mentally handicapped patients for music and speech


therapy? Will he say whether he regards it as reasonable that long-stay mentally handicapped patients should generate income for their own treatment?
The whole House will be aware of the background to the statement. There is a massive surplus revenue in the Treasury which the Chancellor intends to give away in tax handouts in a couple of weeks' time. The money is there to fund a decent Health Service without charging the sick another £10 million for their prescriptions. The increases are unnecessary, unjustified and undesirable. When the orders are tabled, the Opposition will demand a debate on them and an opportunity to vote against them.

Mr. Newton: I thank the hon. Gentleman for his welcoming words about some aspects of the statement. I readily note that in Committee his hon. Friends raised the issue of 16 and 17-year-olds, and I am glad that we have been able to respond in the way that we have.
I believe that the hon. Gentleman's remarks about prescription charges are exaggerated, especially when one considers that last year's increase of 20p was followed by the largest increase in the number of prescriptions dispensed for some years. There is no serious evidence of the deterrent effect to which the hon. Gentleman referred.
With regard to exemptions, the hon. Gentleman will know that my predecessor made it clear that the Government did not think it right to reopen the general list of exemptions, but rather to focus especially on ensuring that effective arrangements were available to those on low incomes. We have consistently sought to do that.
I believe that the hon. Gentleman is labouring under some misapprehension with regard to pay beds. It should be clear to the House that such beds are pay beds only when they are occupied by a paying patient. It other times they are available to, and are used by, the NHS. I readily accept that not as much income has been made from such beds as we would like. Indeed, one of the aims of the Health and Medicines Bill is to increase the capacity of the Health Service to raise additional sums from such beds, for the benefit of NHS patients. I see nothing wrong or foolish about that.
I shall look into the point that the hon. Gentleman has raised about Merton and Sutton, which is new to me, and write to him if necessary.
With regard to the hon. Gentleman's comments about revenue available to the Treasury, it should be remembered that the background to this statement is an increase of no less than 43 per cent., in real terms, in expenditure since 1978–79 on our primary care services and plans for substantial additional real spending over the next two to three years.

Several Hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Speaker: Order. I am bound to have regard to the fact that this is an Opposition day, on which there are two important debates, and some heavy business after that. I shall allow questions to go on until 20 minutes past 4. I am sure that we shall return to this matter, and therefore I ask hon. Members to ask one question rather than several.

Mr. Roger Sims: Is my right hon. Friend aware that his statement will be warmly welcomed on the Conservative Benches, especially in respect of spectacles

and diabetic prescriptions? Is he aware that, every day, people pay, and expect to pay, enormous sums of money for toothpaste, ointments and a whole range of proprietary medicaments for which no prescriptions are required? Does that not put into perspective the reaction to charges for those items for which prescriptions are required? Indeed, as my right hon. Friend said, prescriptions are paid for by only a quarter of those for whom they are written.

Mr. Newton: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his comments. I agree that more than 75 per cent. Of items are dispensed without charge, and indeed approaching half the population are exempt from prescription charges. I believe that that puts the matter into perspective.

Mr. Ronnie Fearn: We welcome the initiatives on eye-testing, dental charges and blood glucose testing about which we are keen. Will the Minister clarify what he means by the increase in prescription charges of 8·3 per cent., which is above the rate of inflation? The phrase "the cost of medicines" is rather bogus, because 20p is way above what the pharmaceutical people believe the increase should be. Will pharmacists be advised to give the people the right formula; in other words, will they be told that they should be using the cheapest, but best, forms of medicine?

Mr. Newton: We would always hope that that principle would apply. Equally, if pharmacists are aware that an item that has been prescribed is available without prescription at a lower price, it is entirely reasonable to draw that to their customers' attention. Prescription charges are, necessarily, an averaging process, and I do not make any great apology for that.
It is true that the increase in prescription charges is greater than the general rate of inflation, but the price of medicines — partly because of advances — is rising somewhat faster, and the increase is in line with the rise in the cost of medicines.

Mr. Jerry Hayes: I warmly welcome my right hon. Friend's enlightened statement on charges. However, will he accept that while the increase in the value of the spectacles voucher is also welcome it will not be of much benefit if, in a few months' time, he announces the abolition of the free eyesight check, because that will simply deter many people from getting their eyesight checked in the first place?

Mr. Newton: My hon. Friend and I discussed this matter at some length in Committee. I made the point then that nearly three quarters of those entitled to spectacle vouchers spend sums well in excess of £10 over and above the value of the spectacle voucher when purchasing their spectacles. As far as we can judge, they do that voluntarily, and that must cast some doubts on my hon. Friend's proposition about the alleged deterrent effect of our sight testing proposals.

Mr. Max Madden: As my hon. Friend the Member for Livingston (Mr. Cook) said, there is a general welcome for parts of the Minister's statement. However, many members of the public will be extremely angry that the Minister has seen fit to increase prescription charges for the 13th time since the Government came into office, when the Chancellor of the Exchequer is sitting on a mountain of money. Does the Minister not recognise that on this occasion he could have announced that there


was to be no increase in prescription charges? That would have been very welcome at a time when the vast majority of people want to make Budget day National Health Service day. Will the right hon. Gentleman give a clear undertaking that, as he has found it impossible to halt the increase in prescription charges, he has no intention of increasing any NHS charges for the remainder of the year?

Mr. Newton: We have made it clear that we have no plans of the kind that the hon. Gentleman adumbrated in the latter part of his remarks.
Prescription charges need to be considered against the background of the cost of drugs. These charges still raise a good deal less than 10 per cent. of the total cost of drugs, which has been increasing very rapidly. It is not an unreasonable policy to increase charges at least in line with the rise in the price of drugs.

Mr. Robert McCrindle: Will my right hon. Friend accept that some of us who make no secret of our wish for additional funding for the National Health Service will nevertheless find it possible to accept the increase in prescription charges that he has announced? Whereas there are some things that only Governments can do — for example, authorising the building of new hospitals and meeting increased payments to nurses—there are some ways in which we can help ourselves. Therefore, for those of us able to afford it the additional 20p on prescription charges is quite acceptable.

Mr. Newton: I am most grateful to my hon. Friend for his supportive remarks.

Mr. Harry Ewing: Opposition Members are concerned with those who cannot meet the additional 20p. The Minister said that his right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland would make a similar announcement. Will that take into account the remarks of the Secretary of State in his commentary on public expenditure in Scotland the week before last, in which he showed clearly that Scotland still has the largest number of deaths from heart disease and cancer in the United Kingdom? Does the Minister honestly believe that increasing prescription charges will do anything to solve that very serious problem?

Mr. Newton: The generality of our plans for the primary health care services—which go much wider, although in some ways they are related to today's announcement — is directed at improving preventive measures, the early detection of ill health and early action to stop it getting worse. That entails the sort of moves that we plan for the development of general medical services, to which some of the proposals that I have announced will contribute.

Mr. Peter Thurnham: Does my right hon. Friend agree that his proposals provide a welcome opportunity for diabetics to look after their own health more effectively and so improve the quality of their lives?

Mr. Newton: One of the purposes of last year's move on syringes and this year's move on blood glucose testing strips is to encourage diabetics to have more regular contact with their general practitioners, many of whom now run diabetic clinics. We are anxious to encourage that, and I am sure that that is in the general long-term interest of good health care for diabetics in this country.

Mr. Dafydd Wigley: If the Minister is serious about preventing worsening health, surely he must think again about the charges for eye testing. May I press him for clarification on what he said about the transition from supplementary benefit to income support and family credit? Will there be any groups that could lose on benefit and be sustained by the guarantee that has been given by the Government? If that is the case, will that guarantee also operate on passporting for prescriptions?

Mr. Newton: There are two separate points. One concerns the move from supplementary benefit to income support and from family income supplement to family credit, where passporting will have the same effect as the transition itself. Of course, many more families will be in receipt of family credit than are currently in receipt of family income supplement. On the low-income scheme above those levels, the effect is more complicated. That is partly because it is extremely complex now and the scheme does not work very well. As I said in my statement, we shall try to bring forward a simpler and speedier scheme. It would be right for the hon. Gentleman to look at the details of that when my hon. Friends are able to bring it forward.

Dr. Michael Clark: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the cost of the blood testing strips was a burden on a considerable number of diabetic patients and that they will greatly welcome his statement? Will the availability of blood testing strips on prescription apply to all strips, or just to a proprietary few? If the blood-testing strips are improved by advancing medical technology, will my right hon. Friend consider allowing those to he available on prescription without any delay?

Mr. Newton: I shall consider the point raised by my hon. Friend in the latter part of his question.

Mr. Robert N. Wareing: Does the Minister agree that it is totally immoral to increase the tax on the sick, including those with multiple sclerosis and asthmatic diseases, just a fortnight before the Chancellor is planning a decrease in taxes on the very rich and often able-bodied people? When the Minister talked about an increase of 43 per cent. in real terms in spending on the NHS, is that in terms of the retail prices index, or of the actual cost to the NHS?

Mr. Newton: The figure is related, not to the NHS as whole, but to the family practitioner services, which are the primary focus of the statement. I do not agree with the hon. Gentleman's moral strictures. Indeed, they are absurd, when about half the population are exempt from prescription charges, over three quarters of all items dispensed are dispensed free, when there are expensive exemptions on medical grounds and when there are important season ticket arrangements, which help many of those who need regular prescriptions.

Mr. Derek Conway: My right hon. Friend's £8 million announcement on glucose strips is as welcome as the statement last year on free syringes for diabetics. It will help to make their lives more liveable. So that we are not awash with crocodile tears when the orders are laid before the House, will my right hon. Friend reiterate that 75 per cent. Of prescriptions are free, and that when the Labour party was propped up in power by the Liberals there was a charge, or as the Opposition put it, a tax, on sickness under that regime?

Mr. Newton: Yes. I can readily agree with my hon. Friend.

Mr. Kevin Barron: Will the Minister accept that the deterrent effect of charges on primary health care is likely only to put pressure on the acute services, which are already under-funded? Will he accept that the future of health care will look very grim until we stop charging for primary health care and do something about getting the nation's health into proper repair?

Mr. Newton: The whole programme put forward in the Government's White Paper on primary care and the generality of the measures being debated currently on the Health and Medicines Bill are designed to achieve precisely the significant further improvement in the primary care service that the hon. Gentleman wishes to see. We obviously disagree about whether it will bring about improvement, but my judgment is that it will, and the proof of the pudding will be in the eating.

Mr. Chris Butler: My right hon. Friend will be aware that general practitioners and pharmacists often do not recommend to their patients that they can buy over the counter more cheaply than they can obtain some things on prescription. Will he consider encouraging pharmacists to issue a receipt showing the cost of the drugs dispensed to patients, so that they are able to make the decision themselves, and, in other cases, to enable them to adjudge the great value for money that they receive from the massive cost of the drugs that can be dispensed?

Mr. Newton: That is an interesting suggestion and I shall consider it. I would hesitate to go nap on it at the moment, in view of the possible administrative costs entailed.

Mr. Martin Redmond: Bearing in mind that a vast number of people are caught in the poverty trap and cannot afford today's prescription charges, what provision does the Minister intend to make to ensure that they receive adequate medicine free?

Mr. Newton: I have already referred to the Government's intention to bring forward proposals for a simpler and quicker low-income scheme for those above the direct passporting from income support or family credit, as it will be. We share the aim of avoiding the difficulty to which the hon. Gentleman referred, and I am hopeful that our proposals will do just that.

Mr. John Marshall: Does my right hon. Friend agree that much of the indignation from Opposition Members is bogus and synthetic, as the increase is less than the cost of a bar of chocolate, and as Labour Governments promised to abolish the prescription charge but have failed to do so? Is my right hon. Friend aware that many Conservative Members would contribute to a season ticket for the cure of verbal diarrhoea for the Leader of the Opposition?

Mr. Newton: I do not think that I would care to go down precisely the track advocated by my hon. Friend in the last part of his remarks. However, I endorse the first part of his question and would add that I am advised—this is against the background of the wide range of exemptions—that the average spending in this country on alcohol is now £8 per adult per week.

Mr. Barry Jones: Is it not unjust to put up prescription charges when the Government are putting through Parliament a measure such as the poll tax? Does the Minister know that under that tax as envisaged his grace the Duke of Westminster will be £7,000 per annum better off? Is it not unjust to announce higher prescription charges when the duke will not have any problem in paying the higher charges?

Mr. Newton: I have enough problems of my own, without getting into the poll tax.

Mr. Rhodri Morgan: I welcome what the Minister said about blood strips for diabetics, but how does he justify the increase in prescription charges for others who are chronically sick? This is perhaps one thing in life that I share with the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Security, who is sitting alongside the Minister. Many British holidaymakers have found that if they forget their inhalers they can obtain them more cheaply over the counter in France than they would in this country, with all the benefits of the NHS. With the latest increase in prescription charges, will the Minister tell the House how many countries in the EEC sell items such as asthma inhalers over the counter at a cost lower than they can be obtained on prescription in this country?

Mr. Newton: I am afraid that I cannot give the hon. Gentleman the information he seeks. However, I have said already that the prescription charge scheme is almost inescapably an averaging arrangement, and that implies that some people will receive their drugs more cheaply than they could in other ways, but others may find that they are a shade more expensive. I accept that.

Mr. Tony Banks: Will the Minister tell the House why the price of medicines has gone up so much? He announced an 8 per cent. increase in prescription charges, which is twice the rate of inflation, and he said that that was because of the increase in the price of medicines. Is that not indicative of the excessive profits being made by the pharmaceutical industry? Is it not true that if he took steps to prevent that industry from creaming off money from British taxpayers he would have more money at his disposal to devote to primary health care?

Mr. Newton: I have to say that, following the introduction of the new pharmaceutical price regulations scheme, I do not think that the hon. Gentleman's perception would be shared by the industry. Great sums of money are invested in drugs, but the cost of producing them does rise. We are anxious to keep costs under maximum control, but the price has risen by 8 per cent. and that is the background against which I have made the announcement.

Mr. Dennis Skinner: Does not the Minister's argument contain a curious logic? He said that when prescription charges are increased it will not be a deterrent to the sick who have to purchase various commodities. However, he uses the alternative argument—as his right hon. and hon. Friends will on Budget day—of saying that there is a deterrent for those in the higher income bracket who have to pay tax of 60p in the pound and that we should remove that deterrent so that they will work harder. The truth is that that curious logic has meant that the Minister has had to make this statement today so that


it is not made on Budget day, because the Government do not want the Budget to look really bad by increasing prescription charges while giving high rate taxpayers probably hundreds and hundreds of pounds per week.

Mr. Newton: I do not see any connection between the two lines of argument. The Government's taxation policies have contributed to the substantial increase in economic resources that are enabling us to sustain the services that we are discussing today. I do not believe that a charge of £2·60, levied, at most, on only half the population, will have a deterrent effect when people are ill, as the hon. Gentleman suggested.

Following are the charges:


Optical voucher values and charges from 1 April 1988




New values £
Percentage increase


(1) Single vision spectacles


Voucher type
A £14·25
15·50
8·8



B £22·00
25·50
15·9



C £33·00
42·00
27·3


(2) Bifocal spectacles


Voucher type
D £27·00
29·50
9·3



E £42·00
50·00
19·0



F £66·00
85·00
28·8


(HES only)
G £66·00
85·00
28·8


(3) Amounts added to voucher value for clinically necessary:




Prisms £3 per lens (single vision)
3·50
16·7

Prescription charges from 1 April 1988


Charges proposed
Present charge £
New charge £
Percentage increase


Charge per item
2·40
2·60
8·3


Season tickets:





4 monthly
12·50
13·50
8·0


Annual
35·00
37·50
7·1

New values £
Percentage increase


£4 per lens (bifocal)
4·50
12·5


Tints £3 per pair (single vision)
3·50
16·7


£4 per pair (bifocal)
4·50
12·5


(4) Complex lens vouchers for those not entitled to standard vouchers:




Single vision £2·00
3·00
50


Bifocal £14·00
17·00
21


(5) Hospital Eye Service Maximum Charges:




Single vision £29·00
32·00
10


Complex lenses £50·00
52·00
4


Contact lenses:




charge per lens £25·00
25·00
—


New Supplements




Supplement for children needing very small glasses
30·00
—


Hospital Eye Service only:




(a) Supplement for people needing specially-made frames
30·00
—


(b) Supplements for people prescribed photocromic lenses for clinical reasons:




(i) single vision
3·00
—


(ii) complex lenses
4·00
—

Percentage


Other treatment
Full cost up to £17: 40 per cent, of cost above £17
75 per cent, of cost
-25 to about +50 depending on cost


Maximum charge for course of treatment
£115
£150
30

Daily charges for services provided for overseas visitors as in-patients as at 1 April 1988



Class of hospital in which services are provided
Single room £
Shared accommodation £


Class A
Long-stay hospitals
93
84


Class B
Psychiatric hospitals
85
77


Class C1
Mainly acute and other hospitals in non-teaching districts
149
136


Class C2
Acute and other hospitals in non-teaching districts
170
154


Class D
Hospitals in London teaching districts (other than hospitals in Classes A and B)
231
210


Class E
Hospitals in provincial teaching districts (other than hospitals in Classes A and B)
185
168


Class F
London Postgraduate Teaching Hospitals managed by Special Health Authorities except the Hospitals for Sick Children and the National Heart and Chest Hospitals
253
230


Class G
The Hospitals for Sick Children and the National Heart and Chest Hospitals
392
357

Charges for services provided for overseas visitors otherwise than as in-patients as at 1 April 1988


Services provided
Hospital class A to E £
Hospital class F and G £


1. For a patient on each attendance at a hospital other than attendances directly associated with the procedures listed in paragraphs 4–12 following.
14·50
21·50


Day Cases1




2. Charges per day exclusive of charges for procedures listed in paragraphs 4–12 following.
28·50
29·50


Day Patients2




3. Charges per day exclusive of charges for procedures listed in paragraphs 4–12 following.
34·00
35·00


Pathology




4. For each request.
7·50
15·00


Radiodiagnosis, Nuclear Medicine and Ultrasound




5. (i) For each procedure listed in Appendix D (charge per Korner unit value).
6·50 per unit for the first 6 units, 1·00 per unit thereafter
9·00 per unit for the first 6 units, 1·25 per unit thereafter


(ii) CT Scanning. For all scans
96·00
115·00


Radiotherapy




6. For treatment in any one day
18·00
45·00


Physiotherapy and Remedial Gymnastics




7. Per attendance
5·50
11·50


Occupational Therapy




8. For treatment in any one day
8·50
10·00


Other Diagnostic Procedures




9. (i) Audiometry
5·00
5·00

Points of Order

Mr. Tam Dalyell: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I wish to raise a point of order, of which I gave you notice, in as succinct and gentle fashion as possible. On the front page of the Mail on Sunday yesterday, there appeared the banner headline "Fines for Hooligan MPs."

Mr. Dennis Skinner: Oh, dear.

Mr. Dalyell: Yes, it is "Oh, dear." I am as quiet as a church mouse. Those who sit next to me know that I never open my mouth, shout, bawl or do any of the things about which that article complains. However, the article raises issues for the House because it states that Government business chiefs are considering drastic action before television is introduced and that the Commons Procedure Committee is considering making recommendations. The article states:
Last week a group of senior Tories met behind closed doors and criticised Mr. Weatherill for being too soft on Labour Left-wingers. And with Mrs. Thatcher worried about Parliaments increasingly tarnished image, the committee's recommendations are sure to be pushed through by the Tory majority.
We wish to be clear about those recommendations. It is open to argument whether those Members of Parliament suspended by the House should he fined. Speaking as one who has been in that position, I am not necessarily against a deduction of salary. There are arguments on both sides of the issue, but, before any proposals are introduced, there should at least be a debate.
We should also debate what should happen to Ministers who are less than candid with the House and, therefore, provoke some hon. Members to behave in that way. It is a question of sauce for the goose being sauce for the gander. By all means, let these matters be considered, but let us see the issue as a whole.

Mr. Max Madden: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. A number of matters appear to be being trailed on the back of the introduction of television cameras into the Chamber. There are rumours

of recommendations for a glass screen above the Strangers' Gallery and for the number of seats in the Strangers' Gallery to be greatly reduced. If it has been proposed that those who are suspended should be fined by losing their salary for the duration of their suspension, have you, Mr. Speaker, received any suggestions that there should be loss of pay for those hon. Members who deliberately absent themselves from this House for days and, in some cases, for weeks and months?
Have there been any suggestions that there should be loss of pay for those hon. Members who see fit to visit South Africa and other unsavoury regimes for weeks on end? Will there be loss of pay for those hon. Members who are away from this House for long periods on non-parliamentary official business? We should know whether any such suggestions have been made by those who are trying to gag hon. Members and thus prevent them making a legitimate protest in this Chamber.

Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. Has any suggestion been made to you that we should take a leaf out of the books of the other courts of this land and not permit those who have been suspended to return until they have apologised? It is not sufficient merely to deprive them of their salaries.

Mr. Skinner: rose—

Mr. Speaker: Order. I do not need any more help.

Mr. Skinner: This is an important point.

Mr. Speaker: Order. I know that it is and I take it seriously, but this is an Opposition Supply day, on which there are two debates.
I saw the article to which the hon. Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) referred. It was grossly overdone. I know nothing about meetings behind closed doors. If the House wishes to change its procedures in any way, whether in respect of pay or the introduction of screens, the matter should be debated on the Floor of the House and have the agreement of the House. We have controversy politics in this Chamber and I hope that we shall always have a robust Parliament and not be mealy-mouthed.

Ministerial Statements

Mr. Harry Ewing: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. This afternoon, you have twice referred to the fact that this is an Opposition Supply day. The first occasion was when the Minister of State was making his statement on prescription charges and associated items. It is noticeable that, through the years and under all Governments, statements are frequently made during Opposition Supply days, but, with great respect, the cure for that is in your hands because, when a Minister asks permission to make a statement, you can say, "No, it is an Opposition Supply day and, therefore, you must make it on a Government day." I would support that approach, even if a Labour Government were in power.

Mr. Speaker: I do not have that authority. Perhaps the House should also debate that issue.

Mr. Dennis Skinner: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. It is important that Members of Parliament, especially those who are new, understand why hon. Members who are expelled from this place receive their pay. It may come as a notable surprise to many people that, just before the general election in 1983, the Government changed procedures in Parliament so that hon. Members expelled from the Chamber, regardless of the length of their suspension, should receive their pay.
I have more news which will help you, Mr. Speaker. The Government introduced that rule, but I made a speech in the Chamber late that night, when the measure was being debated, opposing the idea that the Tories were putting forward, as I was prepared to pay the fine. However, the Government got their troops to march through the Lobby in support of the measure. It is ironic that some Tories now wish to return to the previous procedure. If that is reintroduced, we should make it apply to those hon. Members who come in here drunk or half sober.

Mr. Speaker: I need make no further comment on that.

Opposition Day

[9TH ALLOTTED DAY]

South Africa (Apartheid)

Mr. Speaker: I have selected the amendment in the name of the Prime Minister, and not the amendment in the name of the hon. Member for Orpington (Mr. Stanbrook).

Mr. Gerald Kaufman: I beg to move,
That this House strongly condemns the action of the Government of South Africa in effectively banning all peaceful opposition to apartheid by its restriction on the United Democratic Front, Confederation of South African Trade Unions and 16 other organisations dedicated to the ending of apartheid; and calls upon Her Majesty's Government to participate constructively in urgent international and Commonwealth action against South Africa including comprehensive economic sanctions.
Every day seems to bring its fresh instalment of outrage by the Government of South Africa. Already today we have heard of the arrest of Archbishop Desmond Tutu and of other Church leaders who were bundled into a police car, having been arrested while on the steps of St. George's cathedral and while praying on the pavement after a gathering of Church leaders inside the cathedral. They were later released, but it is clear that not even senior Church men in South Africa are safe from that apartheid Government.
The debate arises from events of last Wednesday, when issue No. 11,157 of the "South African Government Gazette", published in Pretoria, gave the text of Order No. 334, signed by the Minister of Law and Order. That order stated that banning orders had been placed on 17 organisations, ranging from the Azanian People's Organisation to the Western Cape Civic Association and including the largest organisation in which black people in South Africa associate peacefully to oppose apartheid, the United Democratic Front. No one has alleged that any of those organisations stands for violence or has been involved in violence. The Foreign and Commonwealth Secretary and his Minister of State have pointed out that they are all non-violent, and that is repeated in the Government's amendment to our motion.
To take one example, the Detainees Parents Support Committee has the purely humanitarian objective of monitoring detention without trial. It has specialised in publicising the detention of children under the state of emergency and, as we know, thousands of children—some as young as nine — have been detained by the South African apartheid Government. Under last week's banning order, all these organisations are prohibited
from carrying on or performing any activities or acts whatsoever.
George Orwell himself could not have put it more chillingly. Furthermore, Order No. 335 from the Ministry of Law and Order places a series of prohibitions on the other South African black organisation that has mass support, the Congress of South African Trade Unions. These prohibitions include a ban on
appeals or demands for the release from detention of a prisoner or prisoners belonging to a category of prisoners
and


encouraging or inciting among members of the public … to commemorate the death of a person or persons belonging to a category of persons".
Those are both now illegitimate acts by CSATU.
Restriction orders have been served on a number of persons. Who they are is not known officially, since a spokesman of the Ministry of Law and Order announced that the names of those sought would not be made public. He did reveal that 18 restriction orders had been signed by President P. W. Botha. However, it is known that those affected include Mrs. Albertina Sisulu, co-president of the UDF. It seems that she is confined to her home between the hours of 6pm and 5am and may not leave the district of Johannesburg without police permission. Also the subject of a restriction order is Mr. Archie Gumede, another co-president of the UDF, who is specifically prohibited from talking to the news media and from preparing, compiling or transmitting any matter for publication. It is reported that recently the main activities or Mrs. Sisulu and Mr. Gumede have been to try to negotiate an end to violence. They are both now prevented from seeking a peaceful solution to South Africa's problems.
Already South Africa is not only a racially discriminatory and authoritarian society, but a gagged society. It is illegal in that benighted country not only to call for the release of detainees, but even to publish the names of detainees or to state that anyone has been detained.
The Ministry of Law and Order orders of 24 February put an end to the activities of all organisations that oppose apartheid in a non-violent way. The Prime Minister, in her statement to the House after the Commonwealth Heads of Government meeting at Vancouver, said:
the momentum for change must come from within South Africa itself."—[Official Report, 22 October 1987; Vol. 120, c. 921.]
How is such a momentum possible when the Government's amendment points out that advocates of a peaceful change have been suppressed?
So far, only the Churches have escaped banning orders. Only clergymen have still been able to speak out in South Africa, as they did courageously in special services yesterday and as they sought to do today. How far they will be able to go in speaking out is in doubt, following today's outrageous arrest of Archbishop Tutu, Dr. Allan Boesak and the Rev. Peter Storey, leader of the Methodist Church, among others. It is significant that those senior Church leaders were arrested for taking part in a march whereas on Saturday South African police stood by when the Nazi anti-semitic and anti-black resistance movement breached the emergency regulations with a march through Pretoria and when those conducting the march handed over a petition, the police helpfully accepted it. That is the contrast that we now see.
Dr. Allan Boesak, the Coloured Reform Church leader, has said of these latest Government restrictions:
Every single peaceful action we can take has now been criminalised.
His arrest today proves the accuracy of his words. Frank Chikane, the general secretary of the South African Council of Churches, has said:
If more and more people resort to violence, we are going to find difficulty in saying, 'You must not do it because there is still space for protest', while that space is being closed daily.
It was closed even further today. As the voices of nonviolence are silenced, it must be said that the Government

of South Africa have set the stage for bloodshed and that any bloodshed from now on will be entirely the responsibility of P. W. Botha and his gang.
This latest twist in the spiral of totalitarianism in South Africa has been greeted with revulsion. Members of this Government have joined in. The Foreign and Commonwealth Secretary has said that he is "shocked and saddened" and, no doubt, in a little while he will favour us with further verbs of outrage accompanied possibly by various eleemosynary adverbs. The Minister of State, in a somewhat incoherent interview on "Newsnight" last Wednesday, said that she was worried out of her mind. I have no doubt that both are absolutely sincere in their condemnation of these bannings. The question is: what is to be done in response to them?
On "Newsnight" the Minister of State said:
The international community is going to be more harsh in their actions towards South Africa than they've been in the past.
Mr. Peter Snow responded:
Really? And what are you proposing to do yourselves?"—
meaning this Government. The right hon. Lady replied:
We shall talk with our partners about what can be done
and then, at a loss for any ideas, she simply retreated into saying that apartheid was repugnant and detestable. M r. Snow rather cruelly went on:
Oh, you've made that very clear, but what are you going to do about it? … Are you going to take harsh measures?
The right hon. Lady then cleared the situation up. She said:
I didn't mention harsh measures in that sense".
Instead she said that people must be brought round a table. Who should go round the table is not very clear, since anyone from the South African side who might be of any use round a table is either in prison or under a restriction order.
As for the Minister of State, it is true that she spent 10 minutes with the South African ambassador last week, but it is difficult to be sure for which of them it was a bigger waste of time. The fact is that, whatever the decent intentions of Foreign and Commonwealth Ministers and however much they semi-coherently splutter their indignation, any action by Britain against apartheid is effectively sabotaged by the Prime Minister.
The Prime Minister is the world's most effective and enthusiastic accomplice of apartheid. If hon. Members doubt my word they should accept that of a South African National party Member of Parliament, Mr. André Fourie, who yesterday went on television to defend the latest Government measures in South Africa and, in the course of doing so, stated:
We have appreciated the stand taken by the Thatcher Government.
That at any rate was both sincere and accurate, for the stand taken by the Prime Minister has been at great pains to obstruct international action against South Africa.
The predicament that we face was summed up starkly in the report published in 1986 by the Commonwealth Eminent Persons Group on its mission to South Africa. One of that group was Lord Barber, who was nominated by the Prime Minister. The eminent persons said:
We have been forced to conclude that at present there is no genuine intention on the part of the South African Government to dismantle apartheid.
What would they have said after last week's grim developments?
They went on:


We are convinced that the South African Government is concerned about the adoption of effective economic measures against it … The question is not whether such measures will compel change: it is already the case that their absence, and Pretoria's belief that they need not be feared, defers change".
If anyone doubts the fear of sanctions by the South African Government he has only to look at the terms of the prohibition order on the Confederation of South African Trade Unions. This, among other things, bans COSATU from
the making of calls on or inciting (i) a person doing business in the Republic, or with persons in the Republic, to disinvest in the Republic or to otherwise cease doing business in the Republic or with persons in the Republic; (ii) the government of another country to institute or apply trade, economic or other punitive measures against the Republic or to sever or restrict diplomatic or other relations with the Republic".
If the apartheid Government of President Botha were so unworried about sanctions, they would not ban COSATU from even advocating them or trying to persuade others to be involved in them. If, as the Prime Minister claims, sanctions would have such little effect on apartheid, why do the South African Government go to such trouble to prevent COSATU from even advocating them?
Every time the international community, and especially the Commonwealth, seeks to take action to end apartheid, the Prime Minister takes delight in impeding that action and, by doing so, casts herself in the role of handmaiden of apartheid. She came back from the Commonwealth conference in Nassau in 1985, her eyes bright with exultation as she rejoiced at the way in which she had obstructed sanctions. She was asked whether she had moved. "Just a tiny little bit," she replied, holding her fingers about half an inch apart.
At last year's Commonwealth conference, not only did she obstruct discussion of action against South Africa so that the statement on the programme of action on southern Africa was littered with the humiliating litany "with the exception of Britain", but she put her Press Secretary up to spreading untruths about Canada's trade with South Africa, deliberately based on false and outdated figures, to the extent that the Prime Minister of Australia accused the Prime Minister of the United Kingdom of propagating "an abominable lie".
When the African National Congress held a conference against apartheid in Arusha last December, Britain alone of the European Community countries was not officially represented. Even President Reagean sent a representative to the opening ceremony. The conference was filled with contemptuous gossip about the humiliation of the first secretary at the British High Commission in Dar-es-Salaam who, having travelled more than 300 miles to Arusha, was kept hanging round the Mount Meru hotel, waiting for the telephone call that would have allowed him to attend that opening ceremony. He never received that call and had to go back, humiliated, to Dar-es-Salaam while other Western countries were properly represented at ministerial or ambassador level. I myself sat next to the representative of the Finnish embassy, for example, and the Danish ambassador gave an outstanding description of the sanctions that Denmark was imposing.
When, at the beginning of this month, the Commonwealth Foreign Ministers met in Lusaka to discuss not simply sanctions but the next steps against apartheid, Britain's chair was empty.
The Prime Minister claims that she is playing her part by assistance to the front line states. Even if that assistance were substantial, it would not meet the problem. At Arusha, the Minister of Information in the Mozambique Government stated that no amount of aid for the front line states was a substitute for direct action against South Africa, since the latter's aggressive actions made the aid for the front line states necessary in the first place. His opinion was echoed this weekend by Colonel van Dunen, a senior Minister in the Angolan Government, who, I understand, met the Foreign Secretary and the Minister of State while he was here. He said, speaking for Angola,
Our main problem is the root cause of destabilisation —South Africa".
Since South Africa's aggressive actions make the aid for the front line states necessary, it must be pointed out, for example, that aid to Angola is £222,000. Statistics, when analysed, show that bilateral British aid to Angola between 1980 and 1986 had risen to that pitiful level. It had also risen to Mozambique and Zambia, but British aid to Botswana, Lesotho, Malawi, Swaziland, Tanzania and Zimbabwe has fallen in real terms during this decade.
What is more, Britain's assistance is noticeably less than that of other, much smaller countries. Norway has contributed to Mozambique twice as much aid as Britain since 1980. In 1986 Sweden contributed nearly twice as much aid to the front line states as did Britain. In the period since the front line states formed the Southern African Development Co-ordination Conference, the contributions from the Nordic countries have far exceeded that of Britain — nearly double, in fact — and our aggregate contribution since 1980 of £819 million compares with British investment in apartheid South Africa of £6 billion.
That British economic stake in South Africa counts for more with P. W. Botha than all the Foreign Secretary's ineffectual reprimands. We all remember the pointless trip of the Foreign Secretary to South Africa in 1986. When he set off, it was reported that
British officials said that Sir Geoffrey was in determined mood, and was ready for plain speaking".
I am afraid that the plain speaking was rather like Bottom's unsuccessful efforts to be cast as Thisbe in "A Midsummer Night's Dream". Bottom promised that he would speak in a "monstrous little voice". Thisbe Howe's monstrous little voice failed to charm the South Africans. He was kept hanging around, waiting for a gap in P.W. Botha's diary. He was publicly insulted by Botha and was sent away with a flea in his ear, reduced to admitting,
The responses which I have received have not yet enabled me to claim that I have made progress that I would have liked.
He can say that again.
It is about time that the Government realised that soft words to the South African Government will be treated with contempt. The only thing to which they pay attention is strong action. This Government's lack of commitment to fighting apartheid is illustrated by the strong line that they take on other issues.

Mr. Robert G. Hughes: The right hon. Gentleman talks about strong action, and says that the South African Government only react to strong action. If he is going to advocate sanctions to the House, as the motion suggests, he owes it to us and to the people of South Africa to spell out exactly how he believes that they would work, and whether he believes that they will have


an effect in doing what I want to see, which is, bringing the Government of South Africa and their apartheid regime to an end. He has not said anything about that. If he will not do so, he ought to be quiet.

Mr. Kaufman: The South African Government believe that sanctions would work, which is why they have prohibited CSATU from advocating them. Sanctions will have an effect on the South African Government, and I shall be coming to that— [Interruption.] One effect the absence of sanctions does not have on Britain is to give us a reputable name throughout the continent of South Africa.
The Government's lack of commitment to fighting apartheid is illustrated by the strong line that they take on other issues. Last month, the Minister of State, the hon. and learned Member for Putney (Mr. Mellor), created a stir when he visited the Gaza strip. When will a Minister stand outside Soweto and tell television cameras,
Conditions here are an affront to civilised values … a blot on the face of civilisation"?
Last week, all of us who have been involved in the efforts to secure the release from gaol in Iraq of the British prisoner, John Smith, were delighted when he was released after the Prime Minister sent a personal letter to President Sadam Hussein. When will the Prime Minister send a Minister with a personal letter to President Botha pleading for the release of Nelson Mandela?
The Prime Minister has given boosts to Soviet dissidents by receiving Irina Ratushinskaya and Anatol Shcharansky at 10, Downing street. When will she invite Albertina Sisulu and Winnie Mandela to No. 10, Downing street? Such actions would have an enormous impact. They would show the Prime Minister's commitment to the destruction of apartheid. Her failure to take action, either materially through sanctions or symbolically through public moral support for the opponents and victims of apartheid, shows her complete lack of concern at the abomination of apartheid.
In a pathetic interview on "Newsnight", the Minister of State forlornly quoted the pop song, "Give me hope, Joanna, give me hope." It is pointless for the oppressed black people of South Africa to call out, "Give me hope, Margaret Thatcher, give me hope". There is no hope of justice for them from that bleak countenance or from that cold heart. The failure of this Government and that of the United States to take action has allowed the South African Government to feel free to take these latest steps.
We all know why those steps have been taken — a fear of setbacks in this week's two by-elections in the Transvaal and the fear of an organised boycott of the local elections later this year. That is why the prohibition order on CSATU specifically forbids it campaigning.
To boycott or not to take part in an election of a local authority or to commit any other act preventing, frustrating or impeding such an election.
Apartheid has become tougher than ever because the South African Government are responding defensively to internal pressure from the far Right. The problem is that there is insufficient countervailing pressure from outside South Africa, and the Prime Minister of this country bears a heavy burden of personal responsibility for that. She decries sanctions against South Africa, but that did not prevent her from taking part in sanctions against the Soviet occupation of Afghanistan. The deciding factor for

the Prime Minister is not whether sanctions would work, but her attitude to the regime against whom she has been urged to take sanctions.
Last week's banning orders proved conclusively that a policy of no sanctions has abjectly failed. A policy of sanctions by Britain has not even been tried. It is time to try it, and that must be the message that goes out from this country.
Apartheid is doomed. Black majority rule in South Africa is certain. The real questions are whether apartheid goes sooner or later and whether black majority rule in South Africa is to be achieved by peaceful negotiation or through bloodshed. The Eminent Persons Group warned that only effective action,
may offer the last opportunity to avoid what could he the worst blood bath since the 2nd World War.
This Government's policies, through the blocking of effective action, make it more likely that that change will come late and that it will come violently. That is a very heavy burden for the Prime Minister to carry.
History is on the side of freedom in South Africa. This Government seek to spit into the wind of change. The Labour party welcomes the inevitable historical process, the culmination of which will bring long-delayed justice to those suffering millions. We speak for all who care about freedom and justice and who hate discrimination. That is why we ask the House to vote for our motion.

The Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Sir Geoffrey Howe): I beg to move, to leave out from "House" to the end of the Question and to add instead thereof:
'deplores the restrictions announced by the South African Government on 24th February against 18 extra-parliamentary organisations and certain leading opposition figures; calls for the repeal of these measures, which suppress legitimate, peaceful political activity; reaffirms its opposition to punitive economic sanctions and its support for Her Majesty's Government's policy of practical and constructive action in Southern Africa; and calls on the South African Government to take urgent steps to enter into dialogue with free and freely chosen representatives of the black community, with the aim of bringing the repugnant apartheid system to an end and establishing a non-racial, representative system of government'.
I begin by expressing my dismay—it is worse than dismay—at the arrogant assumption of a monopoly of virtue by the right hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton (Mr. Kaufman) when addressing himself to this question. The entire fabric of his speech was founded on the presumption that he, and he alone, and those who think like him, have any insight into the horrors that must be corrected in South Africa. It is founded on a premise of simplicity and injustice to my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister that will not withstand examination. [HON. MEMBERS: "What will the Government do about it?"] The question of what to do about it is one that vexes us all. I only wish that it was half as simple as Labour Members make it seem.
We must start from the firm proposition that all hon. Members share the view expressed by the right hon. Member for Gorton about the mischief that underlies apartheid. My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister told the House on Thursday last week that we condemn the restrictions that were announced by the South African Government last Wednesday against most of the leading extra-parliamentary political groups in South Africa and


against certain leading political figures. The Government, through my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister, have put their views clearly and forcefully to the South African Government. This debate should start from that premise.
As soon as I heard the news I issued a statement condemning what was happening in South Africa. Last Thursday my right hon. Friend the Minister of State summoned the South African ambassador for the same purpose. Our ambassador in Cape Town has made plain our views to the Government there. However, I should make it plain again that these measures are swingeing and wholly unjustified. They amount to a ban on legitimate peaceful activity by most of those, both black and white, who are working by peaceful means for an end to apartheid—the very apartheid that President Botha has described as outmoded.
The measures follow the imposition of a country wide state of emergency, widespread detention without charge, continued evictions and forced removals and unprecedented curbs on the freedom of the press. They are a step away from dialogue and negotiation. They are a step towards further polarisation and conflict.

Mr. David Winnick: Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman give way?

Sir Geoffrey Howe: I should like to develop my argument for a moment.
As yet we have not received full reports about the incident in which Archbishop Tutu, Dr. Boesak and others were involved this morning, but it seems that that peaceful protest was broken up by police action. In that regard, I should emphasise that we are completely opposed to the suppression of peaceful political activity of that kind.
The measures that have been taken — the House should be clear about the extent of the agreement on this matter—are a recipe for despair among black South Africans, who may well ask what peaceful channels of expression are to be left for the legitimate political aspirations of the black community. The South African Government should think again and move to repeal these measures, not only because they are unjust, but because despair breeds violence. Suppressing the symptoms of a problem does not solve that problem; it only makes it much worse in the longer term.
Opposition Members do not have a monopoly of virtue in their denunciation of apartheid. Let it be absolutely clear that on both sides of the House our judgment is the same. At the heart of all these problems lies the system of apartheid. Our position on that is clear. Apartheid is repugnant. It is a blatant abuse of human rights. [Interruption.] I cannot understand why Opposition Members should be affronted by my statement of the simple facts on which the House is agreed. South Africa is not the only country where there is racial discrimination, but South Africa claims to be a part of Western society and to share Western democratic values. Yet, tragically, South Africa is the only country which has institutionalised racial discrimination at almost every level of society.
It must be acknowledged that until a few months ago we could detect some encouraging signs of reforms by the South African Government. [Interruption.] We must face the facts both ways. Those changes included the ending of job reservation, the recognition of black trade unions, the scrapping of the pass laws and influx controls, increasing

provision for black education and the abolition of legislation for petty apartheid. We acknowledged and welcomed those reforms, and we were criticised for that. The tragedy—this view should be supported on both sides of the House—is that we are no longer seeing such progress.
Instead of moving forward, the South African Government now seem to be moving backwards. The basic institutionalised structures of apartheid remain intact. It is that fundamental discrimination that hon. Members on both sides of the House find so abhorrent. That is why we argue so strongly that apartheid must go. It must be replaced by a non-racial, representative system of government.

Mr. Winnick: The right hon. and learned Gentleman was absolutely right to say that Opposition Members do not have a monopoly of emotional concern about apartheid. I am sure that my right hon. and hon. Friends agree that the right hon. and learned Gentleman is equally opposed to the system of apartheid. I do not question that. However, the Foreign Secretary has not said what effective action Britain is to take. Words will not stop, and have not stopped, Botha from doing what he has done.

Sir Geoffrey Howe: I shall come to that directly, and clearly, provided that I am able to do so on the basis of the premise conceded by the hon. Member for Walsall, North (Mr. Winnick), that the feeling of anger against apartheid is shared on both sides of the House.
Let us start honestly. We want to get rid of apartheid. That objective is shared by everyone in the House. Our clear objective is to end apartheid by peaceful means. The question is how we are to do that. We are right to react with feeling to unacceptable acts by the South African Government, but we must temper our response with the realism that will help us to find an answer.
The truth is that only South Africans themselves—all South Africans—can find a solution to their country's problems. Change will come only when South Africans with the power to act are persuaded of the need for action.

Mr. Michael Colvin: There seems to be a certain amount of scepticism among Opposition Members as to whether Conservative Members agree with the remarks that my right hon. and learned Friend has just made, expressing his abhorrence of the policy of apartheid. It might be appropriate for my right hon. and learned Friend to invite any Conservative Member who does not share his views to stand up and say so.

Sir Geoffrey Howe: I shall come back to the central issue. The House and my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister do not need the sneering and patronising advice unjustly offered from the Dispatch Box by the right hon. Member for Gorton. We do not need the unjust attack that he launched on my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister. Now is the time for the South African Government to give full weight to the fact that last Thursday my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister, from the Dispatch Box, presented the Government's forceful condemnation of the latest folly of the South African Government.
It cannot be for outsiders to prescribe solutions. It is not the special responsibility of the British Government to end injustice in South Africa. This is not a colonial


problem. It is not comparable with Rhodesia. South Africa is an independent, sovereign country. It has been so for many years. But we are right to try to help South Africans meet the challenge. That is why we have made clear the approach that we would commend. All sides must come to understand the need for negotiations. What is needed as a first step is a genuine national dialogue between the South African Government and free and freely chosen leaders of the black community.
I agree with the right hon. Member for Gorton that the most hopeful key so far identified to getting such a process started remains the negotiating concept proposed by the Eminent Persons Group set up at the Nassau Commonwealth Heads of Government meeting. That concept is based on initial reciprocal and matching commitments by both sides. One of the things that it calls for is the unbanning of the ANC and other political parties. That is the ironycc—indeed the tragedy—of last week's news, that we are now seeing intensified proscription even of peaceful activity. The proscription of peaceful activity is tantamount to the prescription of violence.
That violence must be our fear: that despair breeds violence. New restrictions can only add to to the seething frustration of the black community. They may well now say that the channels of peaceful opposition are being closed to them, but I have to say that violence is no alternative. Violent struggle would lead only to enormous loss of life on both sides, and it would strengthen support in the white community for repression of this sort. Violence strengthens only those who wish to turn their backs on progress, change and justice.
That is the message that we continue to put to the ANC when we meet it. Of course, we see the ANC as one of the main representative voices of black opposition. It will have to be involved in any negotiations, but I repeat: violence will not advance its cause.

Dr. David Owen: At a time when Archbishop Tutu has shown his condemnation of violence and has been arrested, is this not the moment when the British Government ought to show their condemnation, not just in words, but in actions? If the Foreign Secretary wishes to influence white opinion, why will he not agree at least to the suggestion by the Eminent Persons Group that there should be a mandatory ban on all direct flights to and from South Africa? That, more than any other measure, would bring home to white South Africans how much we condemn the recent action.

Sir Geoffrey Howe: I know that the right hon. Member for Plymouth, Devonport (Dr. Owen) has been attached to that approach for some time. However, it cannot be distinguished from the general case against punitive economic sanctions. I shall come back to the right hon. Gentleman's point in a moment.
I understand why the events of last week will bring from the House and from elsewhere new calls for punitive economic sanctions. Of course I understand the frustration of those calls for sanctions, but I do not accept that judgment.
Of course these harsh new measures increase our outrage, but the Government's strong and sincere views of sanctions are unchanged. There is no satisfaction or utility in striking out at South Africa unless in doing so we bring the end of apartheid nearer. It is no answer to respond by taking measures that only make things worse.
That is precisely what punitive economic sanctions would do. They would make things worse. Many leading South African opponents of apartheid agree with us on this, and there is independent evidence to support it. The major study produced by the Economist Intelligence Unit is a particularly convincing recent example.
We must not forget — the right hon. Member for Gorton mentioned this—that the black opposition is not the only opposition in South Africa. The rising popularity of the extremists of the extra-parliamentary right is already worrying. They are people who regard President Botha as a dangerous liberal. We have seen them on our television screens in the past couple of days. No one who remembers the 1930s in Germany will have any difficulty in recognising what they portend. Isolation and fear feed that creed of hatred. Nobody should lightly adopt policies that would give it leeway.
Let me look at sanctions as they have been imposed so far. The implementation by some countries of punitive sanctions has had no beneficial effect. Attitudes in South Africa towards genuine negotiations have hardened as a result. The result of the general election on 6 May last year showed that. The latest measures taken last week bear that out. If South Africa is determined to defy the rest of the world, that determination springs in part from the pressure of sanctions.
One other equally unfortunate consequence of sanctions has been the withdrawal from South Africa of about half the American companies that had interests there. What has been the result of that? It has been bargain basement takeovers by South African management, now free from external pressure. Many of the progressive programmes of liberal employment practice in which foreign countries have taken a lead have been discontinued. How has that helped? It has not helped the blacks of South Africa at all. What would be the effect of general punitive sanctions?

Mr. Neil Kinnock: rose—

Sir Geoffrey Howe: I wish that the right hon. Gentleman would contain himself and listen to the case that is being made against him. I wish that he would give us credit for the sincerity of our position also.
The hon. Member for Walsall, North conceded that he does not doubt the sincerity of my commitment against apartheid. Let us start from that and consider the effect of general punitive sanctions. Let me tell the House our judgment. General punitive sanctions would stiffen the resistance of the South African Government and the majority of the white population to change. They would worsen the cycle of frustration, violence and repression. They would undermine the South African economy. It would become more difficult to keep pace with the rapidly increasing population, never mind improve the living standards of disadvantaged communities. The people who would suffer most would be those whom we are trying to help. Sanctions would undermine further the stability of the region. Many of South Africa's neighbours have precarious economies closely linked to that of South Africa. The losses inflicted on them in economic confrontation would far exceed the capacity of outsiders to help.

Mr. Hugh Dykes: rose—

Sir Geoffrey Howe: I shall give way in a moment.
Those are the reasons why we oppose, and will continue to oppose, punitive sanctions. Punitive sanctions will make it harder for South Africans to come together to work out a more just future. They will prolong apartheid, not destroy it.

Mr. Kinnock: My hon. Friends and I do not doubt the sincerity of the right hon. and learned Gentleman's attitudes. We doubt the continuity of his logic. He is saying that tighter, more direct action against South Africa would block the possibility of change. Does he recall that last week unprecedented draconian powers were taken to exclude peaceful organisations, not as evidence of the South African Government's responsiveness to his reasonability, but in response to the neo-Nazi Transvaalers whom they are trying to appease to win a couple of by-elections. In the wildest stretch of his imagination, does the right hon. and learned Gentleman think that his words of condemnation will induce any form of reasonability in the Botha regime? What will he do?

Sir Geoffrey Howe: There are two answers to the right hon. Gentleman's question. First, because of the position that the right hon. Gentleman and other Opposition Members have sought to condemn, condemnation from this Government is likely to be met with more conviction than condemnation from almost any other Government. The right hon. Gentleman cannot have his case both ways. Denunciation and condemnation by this Government make an important impact. In the fullness of time they will make a more important one.
Secondly, how can the right hon. Gentleman argue that the sanctions that have been imposed by many other countries are having any effect at all if the South African Government are responding in such a way? The fact is that —this is the entire burden of the experience that we all share—additional measures of that kind being taken in that way will only fortify the resistance of the South African Government and entrench the attitudes that the right hon. Gentleman wishes to oppose. They will prolong apartheid, not replace it.

Mr. Kaufman: If the right hon. and learned Gentleman is right in saying that sanctions and actions of that kind will only fortify the South African Government and their present policies, why have the South African Government banned the Confederation of South African Trade Unions from advocating sanctions? If sanctions did not bother them, surely it would not bother them if sanctions were advocated. They fear sanctions, provided that they are imposed effectively.

Sir Geoffrey Howe: The right hon. Gentleman made that point in his speech. Quite frankly, it was not one of his better points. Of course the South African Government would rather live a life free from sanctions, because they represent a range of attitudes to which they have to react. When I was there two years ago, one of the lessons that impressed itself most clearly upon my mind was the determination with which they would react to additional sanctions by strengthening their regime and not doing the opposite. The fact that they do not like them does not mean that they would react as the right hon. Gentleman would wish—far from it.
The regrettable fact that the House and the world have to face is that there is no panacea, no quick fix, and no easy

way through. The argument that I have used many times is that there is no place in this immensely difficult, tragic problem for what I call the Jericho school of diplomacy. If it were possible, by blowing a loud trumpet and by taking some dramatic world action, to transform the situation, it might be effective. There is no place for quick action. [Interruption.] It is naive and simplistic for the Opposition to give themselves the luxury of baying at me from the Opposition Front Bench, believing that by so doing they are solving the matter. The latest measures will make the process of change more difficult, but our approach must remain specific and positive.

Mr. Eric S. Heffer: Surely the Government remember what happened in Austria, Czechoslovakia and other countries, where Governments washed their hands of the matter, believing that by giving way to Hitler they would help to keep the peace. It helped to bring Czechoslovakia, Austria and other countries under Hitler's control. If the Government had stood firm at that time, and not given way, we might not have had the second world war, and the Hitler regime might not have taken control of most of Europe. Is there not a parallel today? If the Government were prepared to stand firm with most other nations and apply sanctions, we would get a different situation in South Africa.

Sir Geoffrey Howe: The hon. Gentleman has made, I hope, the greater part of the speech that he was otherwise going to make. I do not find myself impressed by it. The parallel is in no sense relevant. In the 1930s, between the wars, the United Kingdom were one of many Governments who would have been able, by taking effective action in the face of military advance, to check that threat. If we look at the prospect in South Africa now, the question is not whether we should mobilise worldwide military action. The case has been made that, by mobilising punitive economic sanctions, we can have an effect on what happens there. All the experience so far shows that that will not happen. I only wish that we could find something that would provide the quick answer that the hon. Gentleman wants.

Mr. Dykes: Will my right hon. and learned Friend give way?

Sir Geoffrey Howe: I shall not give way. I must try to bring my speech to a conclusion.
Instead of punishing ordinary South Africans for the sins of a Government in whom they have no say, we shall continue with our major programme of direct assistance to the black community. We are taking a lead in helping to educate black South Africans to leave behind the difficult present and to progress towards a better future.
Despite what the right hon. Member for Gorton said, Britain is among the leaders in its programmes of economic and security assistance to the neighbouring states. We are working effectively to reduce the economic and transport dependence of the region on South Africa. Our activity in this area is widely recognised and welcomed elsewhere in Africa and, in the long run, it will be crucial.
Above all, we must keep working to help political progress in South Africa. Whatever the South African Government may do—this is the important fact—even today many South Africans on all sides are showing themselves more receptive to new ideas. We have a role in pressing the case for change—

Mr. Paul Boateng: Will the Secretary of State give way?

Sir Geoffrey Howe: I do not wish to give way again.

Mr. Boateng: rose—

Sir Geoffrey Howe: I am sorry. I said not now.
We have a role in urging a case for co-operation among the communities. We do that through the important work of our embassy and our ambassador in South Africa. We shall continue to press our case direct with the South African Government. We shall continue to stress the urgent need for fundamental change. We shall denounce actions that serve only to make things worse. Last week's measures are only the latest example of the South African Government's folly.
In all those ways, there is an important job to be done, not only in London, but by our ambassador on the spot in South Africa. We shall continue to take every opportunity to make known our opposition to actions that infringe the sovereignty of neighbouring countries or further destabilise the region. We shall certainly call for a peaceful settlement in Angola and Namibia, through the withdrawal of all foreign forces in the region. Above all, we shall continue to press for the release of Nelson Mandela and other political prisoners and for an end to the ban on the African National Congress and other political parties, in the context of a suspension of violence on all sides.
I invite the House to reject and condemn the latest restrictions imposed by the South African Government. I certainly invite the House to join Her Majesty's Government in urging the South African Government to repeal the measures before further harm is done. I invite the House to accept that the task of promoting peaceful change is a long and arduous one. There is no simple shortcut such as is commended by the Opposition. We will not shirk that task, nor will we make it more difficult by imposing punitive sanctions that can only make matters worse. We shall continue our constructive, practical policies, which are designed to help, not hinder, black South Africans, and to bring apartheid to an end as soon as possible.

Mr. David Steel: The Foreign Secretary asked the House to accept the sincerity of his commitment against apartheid. I certainly accept it, but we are entitled to ask him to accept that many of us are increasingly worried—he should be, as the person charged with the conduct of our foreign policy —about the tarnished reputation of Britain, not just in the House and in black Africa but round the world, at the appearance of a lackadaisical, do-nothing approach by this Administration to the apartheid regime. Everyone knows that the policy is dictated not by the right hon. and learned Gentleman or his colleagues in the Foreign and Commonwealth Office but by the Prime Minister. We must bring our condemnation to the attention of the House this afternoon.
The Government devote twice as much energy to denouncing sanctions as they do to denouncing apartheid, and it is noticeable that the most vehement sections of the Prime Minister's statements on the subject are reserved for sanctions rather than apartheid.
The Foreign Secretary came nowhere near to answering the question asked by the Eminent Persons Group in the penultimate paragraph of its trenchant report. It said:
The question in front of Heads of government is in our view clear. It is not whether such measures"—
sanctions—
will compel change; it is already the case that their absence and Pretoria's belief that they need not be feared, defers change. Is the Commonwealth to stand by and allow the cycle of violence to spiral? Or will it take concerted action of an effective kind?
The British Government have persistently declined to answer that question.
At this year's Commonwealth conference, President Kaunda of Zambia, speaking on behalf of 48 of the 49 members of the Commonwealth, said that they had to accept Britain's right to be wrong. The House regards it as humiliating that other members of the Commonwealth must accept Britain's right to be wrong. Why cannot Britain join other countries in being right on this issue and in being willing to take effective action?
Sources other than those quoted by the right hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton (Mr. Kaufman) have praised the Prime Minister's stance on apartheid. After the Vancouver conference, the pro-Government Johannesburg daily newspaper The Citizen devoted an entire page to an editorial on the Prime Minister's stand at Vancouver and applauded her publicly. The Government, and especially the Prime Minister, stand charged and convicted of giving aid and comfort to the Botha regime at every turn.
This weekend, I met the Norwegian Prime Minister in Oslo. I discovered that when the Prime Minister visited Norway a little time ago she spent much of her lime lecturing — again with vehemence — members of the Norwegian Government on the wrongheadedness of their approach to South Africa. Everywhere she goes, she uses that argument, and everywhere she goes, she is in the wrong.
We should examine carefully the measures that have been promulgated by the South African Government. Some of them, which were published on 24 February in the Government Gazette by the Ministry of Law and Order, would be laughable if they were not so serious. The Congress of South African Trade Unions is banned from
the stirring-up, by way of publicity campaigns, of opposition among members of the public … to … the detention of a person, or of persons belonging to a category of persons.
That is a sweeping promulgation, It is forbidden
to commemorate or celebrate an event in the history of an organisation … which is of some importance or other to such organisation.
It is also forbidden to engage in
any interference in or meddling with … the affairs or functions of a local authority.
Our Prime Minister would stand to be convicted under that item if she lived in South Africa. That shows the flavour of the sweeping measures that have been taken against organisations that were trying to do what the Foreign Secretary so approves of: to secure change in South Africa by peaceful means.
The Government amendment talks about
practical and constructive action in Southern Africa.
That was the thinnest part of the Secretary of State's speech. I pay tribute to the work of the aid and education programmes, but what practical constructive action are the Government taking to help to end apartheid? The answer is none. Earlier this month, the other


Commonwealth Foreign Ministers set up a committee and met in Lusaka. Sadly, Britain was not represented because the Prime Minister decided that we should not take part in the work of the committee. The Foreign Ministers of Canada and Australia were there, together with representatives of some front-line states. They decided to commission a study on the effect of targeted, intensified sanctions—a phrase that I prefer to the one contained in the Opposition motion of "comprehensive sanctions", because I believe that targeted, selective, effective sanctions would be better than generalised, ineffective sanctions, which is what we might get.
At their next meeting, the Foreign Ministers will consider a specific list of sanctions on which some of the items in the EPG report may feature. Their communiqué also said that they would take steps to counter the effects of censorship in South Africa and make sure that the outside world knew what was going on. Will Britain play a part in that? Our absence from those meetings suggests that we are not prepared even to do that.
We should re-examine the list of items in the Nassau communiqué which is republished in the EPG report. On top of that list is the suggestion made a few minutes ago by my right hon. Friend the Member for Plymouth, Devonport (Dr. Owen) of ending direct flights to South Africa. If we look at that item alone, it does not meet with the condemnation or criticism that has been levelled at other sanctions. It would not cause mass unemployment in South Africa itself. Moreover, it would have a direct beneficial effect on the economies of the neighbouring front-line states. If every business person and every politician travelling to and from South Africa had to go through one of the front-line states, and international flights were diverted to those states, that could only be beneficial, and would at least be a specific sign of the condemnation of the rest of the world, including this country, of the regime in South Africa.
What has happened instead? There has been the piecemeal withdrawal of airline facilities by individual countries — the Scandinavians have withdrawn theirs, and so have the Americans. What have the British Government done? Not only have we not withdrawn our air services, but British Airways mounted an advertising campaign in South Africa to get business to connect people to American airlines in London. Far from joining in effective sanctions, we are prepared to undermine the efforts of other Governments, who are trying to bring pressure to bear on the South African Government. The Government should look at that again.
Are we proud of the fact that in this country we have already been manufacturing the plastic cards or seals that are to go on the identity passes, to enable the apartheid system to be administered? The Group Areas Act will be made more effective by the fact that those passes are manufactured here.
Many Ministers have lectured the Church on creating a climate of morality in recent times, but the Government have a duty to create a climate of morality on the apartheid issue. What has happened to the Victorian values, when cotton workers in Lancashire were prepared to go without work rather than handle the products of the slave trade? Why do the Government not resurrect such morality and say to firms that they should turn down orders for goods

that are directly related to the implementation of the apartheid system? The House is entitled to ask the Government to take that step.
The Lusaka Ministers' meeting set a tone and a trend that we should follow. One of the other items mentioned in their communiqué was tightening up the implementation of the arms embargo and the arms-related materials embargo, to which the Government are bound under the United Nations Security Council resolution. But the Government must also accept some responsibility for the loopholes in that measure that have been allowed. I draw the Government's attention to the fact that as far back as 1983, the then Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office, was saying that there was no conclusive evidence that the South African embassy in London was involved directly in the breaches of the arms trade embargo, yet subsequently the Foreign Office was made aware of an invoice from a firm in London, which carries on it the official stamp of the South African embassy—it is rubber-stamped. I have a copy of it in my hand. What was done about that? Did the Government summon the ambassador and make it clear that such conduct would not be allowed, or did they say, "Well, we'll let the matter go"—I think that that is the attitude that they took — "the people in the embassy who were engaged in this have been recalled to Pretoria, so nothing more need be done about it."? Again, the Government's attitude was to let issues slide.
A report to the United States Congress by the State Department, which was published in April last year, listed seven countries that are in breach of the arms embargo. Chief among them was the state of Israel, but sadly the United Kingdom is another of the seven countries listed. The report states:
Companies in Germany, the United Kingdom, the Netherlands, and Switzerland have on occasion exported articles covered by the embargo without government permission or have engaged in sales to South Africa in the gray area between civilian and military applications.
The report was published in April, as I said. In November I asked a series of written questions of the Foreign Office about what had been done on specific allegations of breaches of the embargo on items such as radar equipment. The Minister of State said in reply to three of my questions, on 10 November and 6 November, that the Government were investigating certain allegations that had been made in this connection.
Since then we have heard nothing. It would be nice to hear tonight that action has been taken on those issues. As the United States report says, there is a grey area between military and civilian equipment. On our television screens we used to see Land Rovers, in the days when it was allowed, being used by the South African police and military against civilians. Such items will obviously be used for repressive purposes. It is no use shrugging and saying, "We thought that they were for civilian purposes."
If the Government do not wish to go down the road of extending sanctions in other areas, let them be forthright with the House and report that they are implementing those embargos, as we are duty bound to do, under the United Nations resolution. If the Government fail to do that, they will stand condemned yet again of paying lip service to their opposition to apartheid. What we want is some action.

Mr. John Carlisle: I am grateful to you, Madam Deputy Speaker, for calling me so early in the debate. I apologise to my right hon. Friends on the Front Bench that I shall not be here for the wind-up speeches because I have a speaking engagement in Portsmouth, when I shall speak to a school about South Africa. Opposition Members will be interested to learn that a ballot was taken among the pupils on whom they would like to speak, and I came top.
We have just been treated to a short diatribe from the right hon. Member for Tweeddale, Ettrick and Lauderdale (Mr. Steel), who gave the usual Liberal view and called for somewhat cosy sanctions. I am surprised that he did not endorse the call this weekend by his right hon. Friend the Member for Plymouth, Devonport (Dr. Owen), that the Union Jack should be removed from the South African flag. Only the Liberal party will go along with such petty sanctions. They directly conflict with the views of his trusted and personal friend in South Africa, Mr. Colin Eglin, the leader of the Progressive Federal party, who has called consistently for the Opposition parties in Britain to withdraw their call for sanctions.
We were also treated, inevitably, to the hypocrisy and humbug of the official Opposition Front Bench, for which it has become well noted. Should not the Opposition's words of condemnation of South Africa be voiced at the same time as condemnation of other countries where the basis of human rights is undermined by varied violent means, be it in the Punjab, Sri Lanka or anywhere else? The House might be a little more sympathetic to their arguments if the Opposition did that.
The right hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton (Mr. Kaufman) is content, as is his party, to flirt with terrorist organisations such as the African National Congress, to support those who are demonstrating outside the South African embassy in Trafalgar Square, on the basis of intimidation of innocent people walking by, and to put the policy that the Labour party espouses behind violent regimes that are trying to overturn the South African Government. The Opposition have allies in the British Broadcasting Corporation, which never ceases to take any chance—

Mr. Robert N. Wareing: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Carlisle: I do not have time to give way.
The BBC never ceases to take any opportunity of putting forward anti-South African propaganda. I feel, and I think many people in this country feel, that the debate is only on the basis of the Opposition trying to wear their heart on their sleeve and take some high moral ground.
I endorse the words of my right hon. and learned Friend the Foreign Secretary, who said that the House is sick of hearing such things as the Opposition say, as if they and they only had a conscience or moral obligation—

Mr. Wareing: rose—

Mr. Carlisle: I am sorry, but I do not have time to give way.
The Opposition speak as if they had some sort of moral responsibility for the matter. There are Conservative Members, with many varied views on this subject, who

care deeply about the future of South Africa, but understand the situation far more than Opposition Members, with their simplistic view.
The state of affairs is always changing in South Africa, not least because the sanction argument has now been lost. The fact that the Prime Minister's stand has been seen to be right and to be working has been borne out in the past few months. Many of the front-line states that were calling for sanctions against South Africa have now muted that policy. Zimbabwe alone increased its trade with South Africa by some 14 per cent. last year. That is some indication of the dependence of that and other countries on the South African economy, and of how devastating sanctions would be for them—as well as for the people of South Africa for whom those who misguidedly advocate sanctions wish the benefit.
That was brought home recently when my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister visited Kenya and Nigeria, where, despite the attempts by parts of the media to suggest that the entire trip would involve the sanctions argument, it seemed to be hardly mentioned. We begin to suspect that even the people in those countries understand that the argument is worthless. Whatever the rhetoric, and whatever measures are taken, the House must understand that—as my right hon. and learned Friend the Foreign Secretary said—the problem will be resolved only by the South Africans themselves. We do not help by condemning as we have done.

Mr. Donald Anderson: Before the hon. Gentleman ends his remarks, will he make any whisper of criticism of the measures?

Mr. Carlisle: I am coming to that.
The position is certainly changing, and I should like to make two small points about it. First, let me refer to the speech made by the state President when he opened Parliament a couple of weeks ago in Cape Town. A certain amount of disappointment was expressed that he had made virtually no reference to the reform process. Those of us who were present perhaps shared that disappointment—

Mr. Dave Nellist: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Carlisle: No, I will not give way.
If the reforms are to take place, and we all desire that they should, they can take place only on the basis of economic prosperity. That is where the sanctions argument undermines the very principle that it seeks to support. The idea that change can take place in revolutionary circumstances is nonsense. The fact that the South African economy is now suffering, as other western economies have done, means that the country must get its economy right.
The dismantling of apartheid — which I support —costs money. If we want to see the same amount of money spent on the education of black children as is spent on that of white children—and I want to see that—we must understand that that can only come about if the economy is there to support it. It is a fallacy to think otherwise.
The other matter that I wish to discuss is the basis of the latest clampdown. I must say to my right hon. and learned Friend that, were I to be here, I would find it rather difficult to support him in the Lobby tonight on the basis of the Government's amendment. It assumes, as, of


course, do the Opposition, that the peaceful protest—the word "peaceful" is in the motion; it is certainly not my word—by the various groups was indeed peaceful, and was indeed political.
Perhaps the House needs to be reminded from time to time that elements in the Opposition parties in South Africa are violent. The ANC has declared that it wishes to see South Africa ungovernable. It wishes to see a military force bring the so-called legitimate regime to its knees. Not all those organisations — hiding, in many instances, behind the respectability of the United Democratic Front — have put forward their protests in a peaceful way. However unpalatable that may be, the House must accept it. The violence, particularly recently, has been in black townships, particularly in the Natal region. It has been black violence. If that is allowed to continue, the structure of even those societies, fragile though they are, is bound to be undermined.
In such circumstances, any Government are bound to discuss possible measures. I am not necessarily saying that the South African Government, heavy-handed though they are, have taken the right action in this case. What we must ask in the House, and what the South Africans are asking, is for the understanding that if we in this country were in the same position, whatever the colour of our Government, we could be faced with a similar policy. It is all too easy to condemn the authorities for placing a ban on those organisations on the assumption, contained in both the motion and the amendment, that they are peaceful organisations.
As my right hon. and learned Friend said, we do not know the full facts of the arrest of Archbishop Tutu, the Rev. Allan Boesak and others today, but they knew the position when they marched from the cathedral towards the Parliament building. They knew full well that they were liable to be arrested. I suggest that Archbishop Tutu, glutton that he is for publicity and for any opportunity to put forward his point of view, probably got himself arrested deliberately, along with several others. We must understand how any other Government must react in such circumstances.

Miss Joan Lestor: What about the children?

Madam Deputy Speaker (Miss Betty Boothroyd): Order. Our debate is not enhanced by bawling remarks from a sedentary position.

Mr. Carlisle: I am drawing my remarks to a conclusion, but I should like to take up the hon. Lady's point. I think that a misnomer is being used in the House. The right hon. Member for Gorton said that thousands of children had been detained under the state of emergency provisions. In fact, no child under the age of 15 has so far been detained. A lot of nonsense has been talked by the Opposition about the number of children who are detained.
We should remember that the crimes committed by those children in the black townships would not have been accepted in this country. Let me tell the hon. Member for Eccles (Miss Lestor) that one 15-year-old is being held after arson was committed at a school— [Interruption.] Perhaps the hon. Lady would listen, although she may not want to hear the facts.
The arson was started by a group of children at the school. When one of the children decided that she wished

to have nothing to do with the burning down of her classroom, she was hacked to death by the others outside the school. If that is the sort of action that the hon. Lady and her friends wish to support, so be it, but any Government in that position are bound to react by detaining those who perpetrate such crimes.
There is no simplistic solution to the awful problems in South Africa. The country is in a state of emergency, and will remain so while people cannot get to work or to school, cannot play sport and cannot live in relative peace and harmony within the black townships. Hon. Members on both sides of the House who have been there should agree that the state of emergency has brought a relative calm to the areas concerned.
These immense problems need understanding, and—as my right hon. and learned Friend has said — they need time. The simplistic and heartrending arguments from the Opposition are spurious and entirely unhelpful. We must understand the position as if we were in it ourselves, and hope that the South Africans will sort out the problems for themselves.

Mr. Bernie Grant: The Botha regime once again stands condemned for this latest in a series of atrocities committed against the majority black population in South Africa, and against the black people in Africa generally. We have seen a two-year state of emergency and attacks on the front-line states second to none. In Angola, even now, white South African troops are fighting the Angolan army. In Namibia the South African forces continue to occupy the country illegally. We have seen the general destabilisation of southern Africa by the Botha regime.
This latest action is extremely serious. I am surprised that the Government, who are fond of taking hard action, cannot bring themselves to take any action against the South African Government. My right hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Gorton (Mr. Kaufman) mentioned some of the 17 organisations that have been banned by this latest decree. They include the Detainees' Parents Support Committee, which looks after the interests of children and detainees and monitors how the South African Government deals with them. It issued a press release on 24 February, which said:
This attempt to silence the legitimate voices of opposition to apartheid is yet another example of the Government's aggressively confrontational attitude and their refusal to attempt to negotiate with the leaders and organisations which represent the majority of South Africans. Furthermore the DPSC believes that the restrictions placed on 17 organisations are ultra vires and that the Government is not empowered to issue these restrictions. The DPSC is a welfare and service organisation. We are baffled as to how we can be a threat to public safety. We are however proud of our record in exposing state repression and bringing to public scrutiny the excesses and abuses of the security police.
In a Radio 4 interview late last week, a person whom I believe to be the deputy ambassador at the South African embassy, when asked about the support committee, said that it was giving wrong information to the Western world and distorting the South African Government's position. Presumably that is enough of a crime for the committee to be stopped from taking any political action. Indeed, it is presumably enough to stop it from taking any action. That is not on. It is a disgrace. The Botha regime is attempting to emasculate such organisations. It is


attempting to stop them from taking any meaningful political action. It is trying to turn them into merely administrative organisations.
We must reflect on the fact that some organisations have not been banned. I am not, of course, suggesting that they should be banned. I refer to the white-led civil rights organisation, Black Sash. White anti-apartheid groups are not banned.

Mr. Winnick: Inkatha was not banned.

Mr. Grant: My hon. Friend is right. Why has Inkatha not been banned? The hon. Member for Luton, North (Mr. Carlisle) talked about black on black violence. He regularly throws that example in the face of the opponents of apartheid. He is effectively arguing that black people are fighting among themselves so we cannot really give them any position of authority. The argument is clearly nonsense.

Mr. John Carlisle: I did not say that.

Mr. Grant: The so-called black on black violence is really black on white violence, because behind Inkatha are the police and the Botha regime. The Botha regime needs people such as Chief Buthelezi to ensure that its racist and apartheid regime continues. It is a fact that when about 430 black people have been killed, the majority by Inkatha, the police have stood aside and let it happen. They have taken no action against Buthelezi and Inkatha because they know that Inkatha is doing a job for the regime.
The United Democratic Front has been banned. It is well known that Archie Gumede and Albertina Sisulu were negotiating about violence in Natal province. It was rumoured that people were beginning to reach some sort of accommodation. We are not a million miles away from the truth if we believe that the violence against black people in Pietermaritzburg could have been stopped. By banning the UDF, the South African Government have automatically removed half the components of the peace negotiations. Because Inkatha has not been banned, it can continue its terrorism on people in the area. We must get behind the so-called black on black violence and find out who is responsible and who stands to gain. The only people who stand to gain are in the Botha regime.
Other things have happened. In response to the recent banning orders, Desmond Tutu, who was arrested today, said that he would not be surprised if the black majority turned to violence. He said:
We have nothing to show for our non-violent approaches … if violence erupts what will be surprising is that it has taken so long.
There is much in that. His sentiments are similar to those of the Eminent Persons Group. I am therefore surprised when the Foreign Secretary comes here and still talks about the peaceful road. The peaceful road leads nowhere. Everybody knows that. Even Gavin Relly, the chairman of the Anglo American Corporation of South Africa, has had something to say about the South African Government's decision. He said that any threats that were posed by the 17 groups should have been dealt with by the courts and that
Yesterday's actions are steps away from the rule of law.
When we consider the present situation and the British Government's stance, we must ask a few questions. I hope that the Minister will be able to tell me what the Government will do with regard to South Africa. The

Foreign Secretary says that external pressure does not work. He says that it only makes South Africa dig its heels in even deeper. I am surprised that he should say that, because the boycott on sport has forced the South African Government to open up to multiracial sport, even if only to a small extent. The consistent refusal to send sporting teams has forced the South African Government to make sport multiracial at least superficially. It is nonsense to say that external pressure has no effect.
The Foreign Secretary said that sanctions would undermine the stability of the region, but the South African regime has undermined the stability of the region for many years. During two years, 140 villages, 840 schools, 900 rural shops and 200 public health installations in Mozambique have been destroyed by the South African Government or their surrogate forces. Is that not destabilisation? Is it not destabilisation when South African troops use G5 and G6 cannon, which have been supplied from the United States of America through the back door, against troops in Angola? That weapon can hit a target the size of a badminton court from 45 km. Is it not destabilisation when the South African Government and their agents bomb the Limpopo railway line? Is it not destabilisation when the South African Government, contrary to contracts made with the front-line states, refuse, at key intervals, to transport goods?
When the Secretary of State says that sanctions would undermine the stability of the region, he is not being as frank as he should be with the House. He has talked about giving direct assistance to the black community. The Prime Minister has spoken about the great education programme that the British Government have undertaken to help black South Africans. Presumably the right hon. Lady is not aware that the key organisation in South Africa for education, the National Education Crisis Committee, has been banned for some time. Therefore, any minuscule effect that the British Government may have in South Africa is negated because the people who know what sort of education is needed are unable to play a full part in the necessary negotiations.
The Prime Minister has said that the ANC is a terrorist organisation, but she seems to have changed her tune. During the Kenya-Nigeria tour she was reported as saying that the ANC did not represent all black people in South Africa. It appears that there has been a shift in the Prime Minister's opinion. When she came back from Vancouver she was extremely keen on the idea that the ANC was a terrorist organisation: now she says that it does not represent all the black people, but presumably she now accepts that it represents some.
We believe that, without question, the ANC is the major organisation that looks after the interests of black people. My right hon. Friend the Member for Gorton has said that the ANC's standing has been recognised by other Western Governments. We are aware that it has not been fully recognised by the British Government, but we know that the Foreign Office has been speaking to the ANC for some time now, despite what the Prime Minister may say.
I believe that sanctions are important. The black people of South Africa have asked us to impose sanctions, and there can be no greater recommendation for them than that, because those are the people—the residents of the front-line states and of South Africa—who will suffer. Those people have said that they do not mind suffering a bit more if it will assist them, in due course, to get their freedom. If the Government do not accept the view of the


majority of black people in South Africa, they are being callous and are not recognising the rights of those people or their ability to speak for themselves. If that is the case, it would appear that the Prime Minister is saying, "I know what is good for you, never mind what you think, and I am going to follow my own path." The Prime Minister has taken such a stand on many other occasions.
When the Minister replies, she must say whether she will recall the British ambassador from Pretoria and seek the withdrawal of European Community ambassadors. In July 1985, after the first state of emergency was declared by the Botha regime, EC ambassadors were recalled. The latest development is much more serious than the 1985 emergency. Therefore, will the right hon. Lady press for the recall of the British and EC ambassadors?

Mr. Ivor Stanbrook: This debate is a charade because our party games mean that our essential unity on this matter is obscured. Indeed, I agree with the Opposition motion apart from the last four words and the Government's amendment is not so dissimilar.
I should draw my right hon. and learned Friend's attention to the fact that the Government amendment makes no mention of the word "Commonwealth", yet it appears in the Opposition motion. I believe that it is a sad and significant thing that, when discussing Africa, the interests of the Commonwealth should be mentioned only in the Labour party motion and be absent from the Conservative Government amendment. Indeed, my right hon. and learned Friend the Foreign Secretary made no mention of that word in his speech. One would have thought that the interests of nearly one third of the world's sovereign states would cause the British Foreign Secretary to have regard to them before discussing South Africa, a country whose policies have serious implications for the Commonwealth.
Today's debate is rather like the debate that we had a year ago when the Government's amendment to the Opposition's motion was distinguished by the fact that the Government used the word "measures" and the Opposition used the word "sanctions". There is no difference in principle between the major parties in the House. We all detest apartheid and we all want to see the emergence of representative government in South Africa, within a democratic system. The only difference is how to secure that objective and what is meant by sanctions as a means of securing it.
Unfortunately, the difference between us appears to be wider because the Government place their emphasis on opposing what are called in the amendment "punitive economic sanctions", and the Opposition place emphasis on "comprehensive economic sanctions." The result of the semantic difference in the wording of the motion and the amendment is that the Government of South Africa believe that the United Kingdom Government support their policies. They do not, but the British Government cannot complain if the world is given such an impression and if, as a result, damage is done to the Commonwealth. The Government do far too little to give the true impression—that we and the British Government detest apartheid and will do all that we practically can to bring it to an end as soon as possible.
What do we mean by sanctions? If, by opposing punitive sanctions, the Government mean only those measures that punish South Africa and their people in a negative way and might defer fundamental constitutional change in South Africa, I agree with them. Comprehensive economic sanctions, as advocated by the Opposition, could be regarded as similarly negative and destructive.
Some sanctions of a symbolic and economic nature already exist. The European Community, the Commonwealth, the United States, other countries and even the British Government have applied a variety of sanctions designed, at one end of the scale, to refrain from assisting the South African Government's policies and, at the other end of the scale, to force the South African Government to come to terms with the majority of their subjects. I must confess that I am in favour of measures at the latter end of the scale. We should consider extending measures, sanctions, initiatives or whatever one may call them that might induce the South African Government to come to terms with the majority of their people. We should consider sanctions that might not do so much economic harm but would be of great significance, nevertheless. For example, we could ban direct flights between South Africa and this country and we could withdraw ambassadors.
The Government cannot maintain their present mild policy towards the South African Government indefinitely. The violence is increasing daily and it has been made worse by internal repression. A doctrine based on the inferiority of one race and enforced by law is bound to result in cruelty, injustice, the use of brute force and misery in all contacts between authority and subjects. Furthermore, the brutality of apartheid at a personal level is bound to sicken people who live in a free society such as ours so that they demand that action be taken to destroy it.

Mr. Michael Grylls: My hon. Friend suggests a ban on flights between Britain and South Africa. Is not that rather self-defeating? Do we not want to encourage more contact? How can we have contact without flights? We want to encourage British people to go to South Africa and seek to influence people in South Africa and equally we want South Africans to come here and perhaps be influenced. That is sensible and we have flights to Russia for exactly the same reason.

Mr. Stanbrook: My hon. Friend shares a point of view that is sincerely held by a great many Conservative Members. Indeed, 20, 30 or 40 years ago I shared that view. However, as time has passed, I have realised that that is no solution. The South Africans do not want to change. They have no intention of changing. They can be induced to change only by pressure. They will not admire our system or want to share our impressions of the world. To a certain extent, I agree with my hon. Friend, because if Afrikaners could see Africans in a natural free habitat, such as is possible elsewhere in Africa, they would appreciate that it is possible to regard Africans as capable and worthy of taking a share in their government. However, there is a struggle for power in South Africa and I do not believe that those who run the South African Government have any intention of giving way even to the influence that shared communications and an outsider's view of the world might bring.
Apartheid is an affront to civilisation and no African Commonwealth state worth its salt would tolerate


indefinitely British inactivity on this issue. Extra sanctions, measures, persuasions and influences are needed to induce the white population of South Africa, which has the vote, to accept fundamental constitutional reforms. Such inducements can include symbolic measures that do not cause grievous economic damage but show that we mean business.
Those who support the Government of South Africa are clearly themselves supported by people with detestable ideas about government and democracy, as has been exhibited by the Nazi-style movements that have grown in strength recently. Such people must not be allowed to think that they have an ally in the United Kingdom. Britain must progressively increase the pressure on South Africa. What is being done at the moment is quite insufficient and will not bring about reform at the pace necessary for that reform to be realistic and successful. If we are to be true to ourselves and our historic role in Africa, we British have no option but to reject the wickedness of the South African Government's policies and do all that we can to change them.

Mr. David Winnick: The brave speech of the hon. Member for Orpington (Mr. Stanbrook) was a welcome relief from the weasel words that we heard from the hon. Member for Luton, North (Mr. Carlisle) who acts as an apologist for the South African Government. I have never doubted or denied that some Conservative Members believe that what is happening in South Africa is monstrous and should be ended, but I do not know whether they are in a minority or a majority. It was for those Conservative Members that the hon. Member for Orpington spoke.
I considered the Foreign Secretary's speech pathetic. When I intervened during it, I said that I did not question the fact that the Foreign Secretary was against apartheid. I am sure that he is as much against that system of racial tyranny as are Opposition Members but that is not the issue. We expected, not just condemnation — although that is welcome—of the latest measures in South Africa but to hear what effective action the Government propose to take.
From the Foreign Secretary's speech we could conclude only that the British Government do not intend to take any measures whatever. The Foreign Secretary was pathetic, not because of any personal inadequacies, but simply because he is the Foreign Secretary in a Government headed by a Prime Minister who is determined that under no circumstances should effective economic measures be taken against the South African regime. The real culprit is the Prime Minister.
It is no coincidence that this debate is taking place in Opposition time. I find it difficult to believe that the Government would have found time for a debate following the events in South Africa last week. The Labour party has strenuously opposed the system operating in South Africa. We did so from the very beginning, when the Nationalists took office in 1948. We do not deny or apologise for the fact that we feel strongly and passionately about this subject. It is difficult to think of any subject about which we feel more strongly: just as our predecessors felt as strongly about the slave trade and its awful happenings or the tyranny of Hitler's Germany and Mussolini's Italy in the 1930s.
It was a Labour Government who banned the arms sales to South Africa in the 1960s. In 1967 some members of the Cabinet, particularly the then Foreign Secretary, the late George Brown, wanted to reverse that policy. It quickly became public knowledge. It is said that Cabinet meetings are confidential, but the subject of the meeting in question was soon leaked. Labour Members in their hundreds tabled a motion making it perfectly clear that any reversal of the Government's policy was totally unacceptable. If the Cabinet had gone ahead, we should have voted against the Government in the Lobby, because we considered that to be our responsibility.
On 18 June 1970 Labour lost office. I should remember that election date, as I lost my seat, where I had had a majority of 81. On 6 July the Foreign Secretary, now Lord Home, announced that the Labour Government's ban on arms sales was to be reversed. The Conservative Government could hardly wait to declare that change of policy. It is a good job that the ban on arms sales to South Africa is now the subject of a United Nations Security Council mandatory resolution, and has been since 1977. If it were not, I could almost believe that the Prime Minister would be arguing—as Conservative politicians, including the right hon. Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (Mr. Heath), who was the Leader of the Opposition, argued in the debate on arms sales in 1967 — that it was right and proper to sell arms to South Africa because other countries would do so if we did not. There is not the slightest evidence to show that the South African authorities take any notice of the criticism levelled at them by Western Governments, including the United Kingdom. It is not words that will shift the rulers in that country.
As we know, at this moment the South African Government are concerned about the challenge from the even more Right-wing in South Africa, such as the Conservative party and the Nazi-inspired Afrikaner Resistance Movement. Botha is concerned that some by-election may be lost. He is far more concerned with appeasing the ultra-nationalists, the Right-wing or the Nazi-inspired movements such as we have seen on the television news, than with international opinion. That is what we have to recognise today.
I accept entirely that sanctions—I want to see them applied — would not bring down the South African Government in a matter of days, weeks or months. I do not challenge that. However, it would weaken and isolate the South African authorities. They are desperately frightened of international sanctions. They do not want them at any price.
Sanctions, moreover, would be a signal to the regime that at long last the international community is taking action and will continue to do so until substantial changes occur in South Africa leading to majority rule. There would also be a second signal to all those in South Africa who oppose the regime, such as the African National Congress and the people it represents, and those in the white and coloured communities who are just as opposed to the system as we are, that at long last Western countries, Britain included, and the EEC are determined to support their campaign and struggle against racial tyranny. No longer would it be simply a matter of words. No longer would it be a matter of condemning the South African Government's actions, as the Foreign Secretary did today, and then washing one's hands of it.
Whenever we debate South Africa, everyone here, with one or two exceptions, such as the hon. Member for Luton, North and one or two others who have not spoken, criticises the apartheid regime. In the main there is condemnation of apartheid. The real divide in the House — this is what I would say to the Foreign Secretary, who has now returned to the Chamber — is between those who criticise what is happening in South Africa but rule out any action against the regime, and Opposition Members, who argue that the South African system is a monstrous racial tyranny modelled on the lines of Hitler's Germany which should be penalised and punished for as long as it refuses to change its ways.
The report of the Eminent Persons Group referred to sanctions. That group was made up of a number of people, including Lord Barber, whose political opinions would be somewhat different from ours on the Labour Benches. The report said:
If it comes to the conclusion"—
that is the South African authorities—
that it would always remain protected from such measures, the process of change in South Africa is unlikely to increase … and the descent into violence would be accelerated.
The report went to speak about the Africans and said:
If it also comes to believe that the world community will never exercise sufficient effective pressure through other measures in support of their cause, they will have only one option remaining: that of ever-increasing violence.
If people are denied their basic rights, have no part to play in the government of their country, are refused the vote and basic civil and democratic rights for one reason only — the colour of their skin — is it surprising that some have come to the conclusion in South Africa that violence should occur?
The Prime Minister said that the ANC is a terrorist organisation almost on the lines of the IRA. That only helps the IRA. No one in Northern Ireland is denied the right to put forward a point of view, however Republican he or she may be. There is no reason and no excuse for terrorism in Northern Ireland. In South Africa it is not terrorism, but violent struggle by people who are denied their rights. Therefore, to slander the ANC is to help the IRA and other terrorist organisations. It is to slander an organisation which came into being in 1912 and which until 1960 said that under no circumstances would violence be used. It was only at the time of Sharpeville that it came to the conclusion that there was no alternative.
We are right to have this debate. I saw the remarkable film "Cry Freedom", as I am sure did some of my hon. Friends. It was moving in many ways. In my view—I am not a professional critic—the most effective moment was the end, when the credits went up and we saw the names of all the people who over the past 10 or 15 years had been murdered in detention. That is an illustration of what is happening in South Africa today. I trust that this debate will be one of many to come.
The message from Labour Members—not from the Conservative Government—to all those in South Africa opposed to the regime, whether black, white or coloured, is, "We are on your side. Everything we can do, we will do. Your struggle is a just one. You are right to demand freedom and we want to do everything in our power to ensure that freedom and liberation come to South Africa."

Mr. Hugh Dykes: Many of us share the passion that was displayed at the end of the speech of the hon. Member for Walsall, North (Mr. Winnick). My remarks will be brief because many other hon. Members want to speak in this short debate.
I am sure that the support that the ANC receives in South Africa is considerably higher than that which can be claimed by the South African Government—the Pretoria regime. In fact, the measurement of election figures in recent elections shows that the Pretoria regime governs on the basis of support from about 7 or 8 per cent. of the population. Of course, artificially that is a large percentage of the electorate because the electorate is so small. However, if anyone were to ask which of all the panoply of political forces in South Africa has the greatest legitimacy, I would unequivocally and unhesitatingly say that the ANC has greater legitimacy as a political force and as a component in the future government of South Africa, along with other entities and components that negotiations may bring about.
The ANC is a constructive force for future peace but it is trapped by the vicious and evil nature of the Pretoria regime. Some people, rightly excluding my hon. Friend the Member for Orpington (Mr. Stanbrook), who knows so much about South Africa, are tempted to think that the Pretoria regime is prepared to compromise and indulge in real reforms. I hope that they will allow those illusions and naive beliefs to be dispelled. There have been no reforms beyond the wholly artificial and transparent idea of racial mixing and sexual relations between peoples. The Act preventing that has been repealed. However, there have been no other reforms. Even the old passes have been replaced with new ones. They may look more modern, more acceptable and more sophisticated but the intention behind them is the same: to keep the population separated.
In all measurements of world history it is a detestable and wicked regime that has to be removed. I am glad that Opposition Members have acknowledged that they have no monopoly of virtue on the matter. Conservative Members also feel that that has to be done. Inevitably, because South Africa is a sovereign country, it has to be done by the population concerned, however hopeless we may feel the position is after having seen the latest incredible and stupid measures of that totally evil Government who are trying once again to clamp down on legitimate and peaceful political protests and actions. We have to ask ourselves how things will work out.
I share the genuine, honest and sincere reservations about sanctions held by my right hon. and learned Friend the Foreign Secretary. I believe that Pretoria is the sort of regime that will be forced further and further into isolation. There is the defiant laager mentality. This is a sad thing to say and I wish I did not have to say it, but even with concerted international action from all the Governments involved, out of the woodwork throughout the world—it is a wicked old world—would come all the middle men, the intermediaries, the traders and the entrepreneurs. They would go to Pretoria and say, "We will find every conceivable way of getting over the sanctions problems, do not worry." Therefore, there would be a combination of increasing isolation and political defiance, further measures of repression against the hapless and long-suffering majority black population, the Indians, coloureds and the whites who are courageous


enough to stand up against the evil, as well as the mechanisms and entrepreneurial decisions that would allow the South African Government to overcome the problems.
The solution must come from inside. Conservative Members need not apologise for saying that we are not sure how that will happen. I am worried about the situation, as was my right hon. Friend the Minister of State when she referred to the matter in the media during the weekend, after the latest measures had been announced.
An ominous situation is developing. I wonder what the next step will be with this crazy regime which is sufficiently defiant to ignore even rational and sensible opinion in its own country. It ignores the advice of even sensible, pragmatic business men such as Tony Bloom who are now leaving the country. I and other hon. Members regret that very much.
I hope that my right hon. Friend the Minister of State will comment on this, if time allows. Since the latest emergency began in 1984, how many people have been detained and how many murdered in detention by the South African regime? From my vague impression, the figure must be at least several thousand. We do not know, because no figures are published by this lying regime, which never tells the truth, so we have to guess about what is happening, but the total includes children, teenagers and women. How many people have been murdered in detention since the latest emergency began in 1984, let alone since 1976, the period with which Richard Attenborough's film deals? Almost 1,000 schoolchildren were shot in the back as they ran away from the police. That shows the kind of regime which we are discussing. It will use any excuse.
The regime is imposing itself more by its latest series of insane measures. At present, it spared Black Sash, perhaps because it consists of powerful, rich, white ladies who do a wonderful job. I am not grumbling about that, but what will happen when the extra violence which results from the measures ensues? What happens when the regime begins to kill hapless, defenceless black citizens in large numbers? If we are against sanctions, how do we in the Western world and elsewhere react to what is happening, if we are unable to learn about it? The press shackles are so complete. The press have not even tried to bring out the truth of what is happening in the unrest areas. We have the vague impression that things have quietened down. To some extent, that is true, but there is also much more trouble going on, not just in Natal.
When the regime starts to murder large numbers of defenceless black people, how should we react? We may have serious reservations about sanctions. They can be empty gesture politics, although I respect the sincerity of Opposition Members. The Western world and the United Nations will have to decide how to react. In the meantime, allowing for the inherently unsatisfactory nature of this appalling situation, the Government, the European Community, the United Nations and the Commonwealth must do everything in their limited grasp in respect of this sovereign country which will make its own decision and will be defiant unto us all, if it so decides. So far, that has been its indication, almost without exception.
We must decide what we can do and I hope that that will mean, in a limited way, another EC initiative and the sending of yet another mission. Hon. Members may claim that it has not worked before, so why bother to do it again,

but attempts must be made to encourage Pretoria to listen to outside suggestions. I am pessimistic about whether the regime will respond, but we must try. In so trying, we continue our constructive policies rather than doing what I now fear we shall do, if we say that sanctions are not practical, cannot be implemented and are not a good idea because they would cause unemployment. I fear that we shall say that we can now do nothing. That is the worst of all our options.
I understand the anxiety of Labour Members. They are entitled to complain about that danger. If we de not do anything the situation will deteriorate into genocide unless the Pretoria regime is checked by internal reforms.

Mr. Richard Caborn: The last two contributions from the Government Benches have been well thought out speeches and have been taken seriously by a number of Labour Members.
I challenge the basis of the Foreign Secretary's argument. He put to the House his reasons for not taking action. He asked Opposition Members to accept his sincerity about changes in South Africa and the eventual removal of apartheid. I hope, therefore, that he will accept the words of the Eminent Persons Group, of which his noble Friend Lord Barber was a member, when it went to South Africa to assess the position. That is the base line from which we start. The way in which we deal with the mentality inside the institutions of South Africa is important.
Page 132 of the Eminent Persons Group report refers to the group's discussions with the South African Government and says:
In the Government's thinking, there were a number of non-negotiables; for example., the concept of group rights—the very basis of the apartheid system—was sacrosanct; the 'homelands' created in furtherance of that concept would not disappear, … the principle of one man one vote in a unitary state was beyond the realm of possibility; the Population Registration Act would continue; and the present Tricameral Constitution which institutionalises racism must be the vehicle for future constitutional reform. From these and other recent developments, we draw the conclusion that while the Government claims to be ready to negotiate, it is in truth not yet prepared to negotiate fundamental change, not to countenance the creation of genuine democratic structures, nor to face the prospect of the end of white domination and white power in the foreseeable future. Its programme of reform does not end apartheid, but seeks to give it a less inhuman face. Its quest is power-sharing, but without surrendering overall white control.
I ask the Foreign Secretary to contrast that with the freedom charter and the principles embodied in that charter, which was the product of a delegation of some 3,000 people in 1955. That charter embodies all that any democrat would want in a multiracial society.
That leaves us with two options. The first option is to bring further pressure to bear on South Africa. The measures that the Government agreed to take have not been carried out as was agreed at Nassau. People both inside and outside South Africa call upon us to take that course of action. Every major organisation in South Africa which supports the removal of apartheid is asking for sanctions to be applied to South Africa. Change will come only from within South Africa.
The second option was put forward by the Foreign Secretary this afternoon — to pursue dialogue and constructive engagement. Since the Commonwealth meeting at Nassau in October 1985, a number of actions


have flown in the face of international opinion and in the face of the Eminent Persons Group, which was in South Africa when there were incursions and bombing raids into Commonwealth countries.
There has been the imposition of another state of emergency. Media coverage has been banned and a number of journalists expelled. Violence has increased and now includes violence towards children. Any country that tortures or puts its children into prison must be asked whether it has a human Administration. There have been mass arrests of young people. A conference called "Children under apartheid", held in Harare not long ago, referred to the horrific treatment of children. The accounts came not only from young people but from psychiatrists and teachers.
There have been incursions into the front-line states. Only last week there was a further incursion into Angola. Namibia continues to be illegally occupied, in direct opposition to United Nations resolution 435. Just last week 17 organisations, which were clearly non-violent campaigners against the apartheid regime, were banned.
Every step taken by the South African regime is against the type of constructive engagement that the British Government have continued to pursue. It was unfortunate that the Prime Minister in a Government who were a party to an agreement like the Nassau accord tried to rubbish that conference as she came away from it. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Gorton (Mr. Kaufman) said, the right hon. Lady said that Britain had moved a teeny weeny bit. But we have not moved even a teeny weeny bit. In those areas covered by the Nassau accord, we are still supplying Land Rovers, which are patrolling the townships and from which South African police shoot to kill. We are supplying British ICL computers to the South African police and the arms industry. British military radar, provided by Plessey and Marconi, is used to control South African air attacks into neighbouring African states. British oil companies, such as Shell and BP, continue to fuel the apartheid war machine. The Department of Trade and Industry has stepped up its promotion of trade. I have documentation to show that action is being taken in direct contradiction of section 6(c) of the Nassau accord. A letter of 5 January 1988 from the west midlands regional office of the British Overseas Trade Board said:
Dear exporter,
Forthcoming trade mission to South Africa.
1. Following the success of its trade mission in South Africa in November 1987 the United Kingdom-South Africa Trade Association has announced its intentions to mount a second trade mission there in April 1988. Full details are available from Mr. Tim Bird, 45 Great Peter Street, London SW1.
2. In addition, management and training specialists will lead a mission to South Africa starting on 23 February 1988.
Details are given, The letter continuned:
3. In accordance with the United Kingdom's international commitment neither mission will receive any Government financial support, with an exception; the full range of DTI services is being made available.
4. South Africa continues to present many opportunities for British firms especially those in construction and engineering sectors.
I do not know whether that is following the Nassau accord to the letter.
Barry Harding, a senior civil servant in the Department of Trade and Industry, writes:

South Africa: export assistance available. I fear that the message which my colleagues in the market branch here have endeavoured to put across by visits to regional offices etc has not reached everyone. I would be grateful if you will remind your staff that the Minister for Trade is content for officials to continue with the present policy of offering exports for a normal range of assistance apart from those specifically banned. In practice, this simply means that no financial contribution is presently made towards outward missions or joint ventures to South Africa. All other assistance continues to be available including a useful background briefing note which is updated quarterly and a range of market reports.
Those are the words of a leading DTI civil servant, yet we are supposed to be banning trade missions.
I shall pose a series of questions to the Minister. First, will the British Government recall the British ambassador to Pretoria and seek the withdrawal of all European Community ambassadors? Secondly, will the British support the convening of the United Nations Security Council, since it is likely that an emergency debate will take place, probably this week? Will the Government undertake not to use their veto powers if there is a package of sanction measures before the Security Council that are acceptable to other Western countries? Thirdly, will the Government seek from the United Nations Security Council mandatory action to enforce the measures to which they have already agreed—for example, the oil embargo and an embargo on computer exports? It makes no sense for Britain to adopt such measures and then block their universal application.
Fourthly, will the Foreign and Commonwealth Secretary go to the meeting of European Community Foreign Ministers this weekend with a positive approach to reach agreement on additional European Community measures? In particular, will he use his influence with the West German and Portuguese Foreign Ministers to get agreement on a ban on coal imports? Fifthly, will the Government follow up the Minister's statement, to which reference has been made many times, on 24 February on "Newsnight"? Will they consult their Commonwealth partners by meeting the Commonwealth Secretary-General and support the convening of a meeting of Commonwealth Foreign Ministers or a meeting of the Commonwealth southern African committee to reach agreement on further measures? There are many other measures that the Government should take to send out the correct signals to South Africa. If the Government are to fulfil the words of the Foreign and Commonwealth Secretary, those words must be backed up by action. Convening meetings of these international institutions is an important step to ensure that the right vibes are sent out to the regime in South Africa.
A number of us have called for the removal of the Union Jack from the South African flag. Someone said that that was fairly symbolic. Because of what we have seen on our television screens this weekend — with the AWB and actions similar to the Nuremberg fiascos when the Fascists were coming to power — many of us are afraid that, unless action is brought by external powers to liberate South Africa, the Nazi symbol of 1988 may be seen clearly at the side of the Union Jack, flying over the South African embassy in this nation. That is unacceptable. History has repeatedly taught us that we cannot run away from the Fascist tendencies. They must be confronted. We do not want to come back in a few years and say, "We told you so." As the hon. Member for Harrow, East (Mr. Dykes) said, there could be genocide in South Africa. We want positive action and that is what the motion is about.


If we let time pass, the predictions in the report of the Eminent Persons Group will come true. We could see the biggest bloodbath since the second world war.

Mr. Michael Knowles: I share the fears of the hon. Member for Sheffield, Central (Mr. Caborn), yet I believe that in part we have trapped ourselves into our present position. Our mistake has been to keep only to a stick policy. We have not had a stick and carrot policy towards South Africa; we have just kept on trying to use the stick. I have said, as have other hon. Members, that we should have offered investment in southern Africa as a whole, especially in education, on the basis of a second Marshall plan, yet that has not happened. All that we have sought to use is the stick as a policy to try to drive the South African Government in the direction that we want them to go.
The hon. Member for Tottenham (Mr. Grant) made a point about black against black violence. One could say that that is perhaps a good sign, because people are starting to move towards a realisation that apartheid, in the way that it has been known, is passing and forces are starting to move to fresh positions in search of power. There is a power struggle between the African National Congress and the United Democratic Front and Inkatha, and that is not surprising. If one takes the UDF and the ANC as being roughly lined up with the Xhosa nation it is hardly surprising at all, but it could be taken as a sign that things are advancing rather than going backward.
It is probably true of us all in all situations that we are trapped in our own beliefs and what we want to come true we work backwards towards. The thing that worries me is that South Africa is the regional superpower. It dominates southern Africa in a way that we in the United Kingdom seem not to understand. If we take South Africa in relation to Africa as a whole, with 4 per cent. of Africa's territory, South Africa consumes 60 per cent. of the continent's electricity, produces 66 per cent of its steel, is responsible for 40 per cent, of industrial production, and so on. It is a massive regional superpower and dominates the area. This must be taken into account.
It means that if sanctions become really effective they will hit not only South Africa but every neighbouring state as well, and probably with interest. South Africa will make sure that it passes the effect on.
Another worrying suggestion made earlier in the debate was that we should end direct flights to South Africa. This is fine as a gesture, and one takes it on board, but the net effect will be that Swissair will do very well, because all that people will do is fly to Switzerland and trans-ship. The same has happened in the United States. People fly to London. Unless one can be certain of the outcome, it is a dangerous game to play.
The whole sanctions argument is riddled with hypocrisy. For example, 46 out of the 50 members of the Organisation for African Unity trade with South Africa. France suddenly advocated a ban on trading in nuclear power with South Africa — after it had sold a power station to Johannesburg, of course. Australia is in favour of a sanction on coal exports from South Africa. What a surprise. It is in the business itself.

Mr. Allan Rogers: The hon. Gentleman was speaking a little while ago about the problems of travel to

South Africa. Will he tell the House what method of travel he used to go to South Africa when he went out on trips spondored by the South African Government?

Mr. Knowles: A flight from London to Johannesburg.

Mr. Rogers: Who paid?

Mr. Knowles: Bophuthatswana. It is all in the declaration. I am not quite sure of the point of the question, because all that hon. Members need do is look up the Register of Members' Interests and they will find it all declared there.
A point was made about the oil embargo—

Mr. Martin M. Brandon-Bravo: Does my hon. Friend agree that it is better to have gone there and seen for oneself than to sit sometimes on the Opposition Benches, never having been within 10,000 miles of the place?

Mr. Knowles: Yes.
A point was made about the oil embargo. The truth is that the oil embargo does not work. When I was in Durban I saw that it was a case of wall-to-wall tankers, and petrol was half the price that it is in this country. And that is supposed to be with an oil embargo. The arms embargo merely served to create a South African arms industry. The point was made earlier — again by the hon. Member for Tottenham, I think — about long-range guns. He thought that they were American. They were not. They were indigenous South African guns. They were G6 and G7 long-range guns using the special steels that had to be made to give them that range. That is the nature of the economy that one is dealing with.
We must also understand the nature of the people that we are dealing with, the Afrikaners. It is not easy to push them around. We should know; we have tried. We fought two wars with them, and eventually won, but we must remember the cost of our winning. We put their people in concentration camps and slaughtered one third of them. We had to do that to beat them. We then spent 40 years trying to crush them as a people, and we failed.
It is a serious situation and there is a danger of massive bloodshed. Let us not kid ourselves that there is a quick, easy solution, because there is not. We must look at it with a cold, hard eye.

Mr. Donald Anderson: There have been two major themes in the debate, one an analysis of the events of the past weeks in South Africa and the other the appropriate response, if any, from Her Majesty's Government.
On the analysis of the events of the past week there has, with the exception of the hon. Member for Luton, North (Mr. Carlisle), been a substantial degree of consensus on both sides of the House. As regards the response from the Government side, I notice that the Prime Minister last Thursday called the action a setback for the possibility of peaceful negotiations. The very idea of a setback is an illusion. It implies there has been steady progress, marred only by this step backwards with the events of the past week. Had the Prime Minister listened to what must come from her own people in Pretoria, she must surely have been aware of not only the emergency and the detentions over the past two years, but the well trailed restrictions on universities, the proposals for trade union reform and the increasing pressure on the United Democratic Front since


its formation in 1983, which has meant that only three members of the executive of the UDF were at large— neither on the run nor in detention—last week. It can hardly be designated as a setback, therefore, but as something which has been well trailed and which is very consistent with the recent trend of South African policy: the United Democratic Front and the Congress of South African Trade Unions are seen as key barriers to the maintenance of white minority rule, which is what Botha and his Government are all about.
Yet the Prime Minister persists in calling it a setback as if she could claim, against the evidence, that it is a process of reform, and that constructive engagement, more trade being pushed by the Government—as my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Central (Mr. Caborn) said earlier—and more contact with the South Africans can somehow bring them into the 20th century and the real world.

Mr. Colvin: rose—

Mr. Anderson: I know a number of those directly concerned in the repressive measures last week, and a number are known to the Minister of State. I think of Archie Gumede, whom I first met when he sought sanctuary in our consulate in Durban. He is co-president of the United Democratic Front. I had several lengthy discussions with him at that time and I gained a pretty good view of his judgment and political disposition. I was amazed at his moderation. I certainly would not have been as moderate, given the repression to which his people have been subjected. It is well known that in the past weeks he has been involved in a search for reconciliation, in Pietermaritzburg, of the conflicts between the UDF and Inkatha. That man's voice is temporarily stilled.
I spoke from the same platform in Durban as Albertina Sisulu. Her husband is on Robben Island. Her son, Zwelakhe, is a fearless journalist, but he has been in detention for over a year. Albertina Sisulu has been a force for peace and reconciliation not only in the Ford dispute but during the recent troubles in the Cape, but now she has been banned.
With regard to the white population we think of Max and Audrey Coleman from the white business community in South Africa. They became politicised when their sons were detained by the South African Government. They formed, with others, the detainees' parents' support committee. That committee, to some extent, has been funded by the European Community and other worthy organisations in the west. It is the equivalent of the Sakharovs and other groups within the Soviet Union. The Prime Minister would be keen to see Sakharov, but she would not deign to see the Colemans or others in South Africa.
Who is left to talk to when the voices of moderation are stilled? The people who have sought the ways of avoiding violence have been pushed to one side by Botha and his henchmen. Surely the message from Mr. Botha is that he has no serious interest in fundamental change. His only interest is in winning by-elections by the votes of the minority white electorate. He is ready to ignore outside opinion—the special relationship that he has with our Prime Minister.
What should be the appropriate response of the British Government to the new measures of repression that have

stifled the voices of peaceful people and leaders within South Africa? We believe that—this was shown by the Foreign Secretary earlier—the likely response will be the same as before. All the signals given by the Government will be of comfort to Pretoria and of despair to world opinion, the Commonwealth and the United Nations. Among such signals we have already excluded ourselves from the Commonwealth Committee of Foreign Ministers, which was set up at the Vancouver conference. We were not represented at the meeting in Lusaka at the beginning of this month, even though the terms of reference of that committee were much wider than mere sanctions. The Foreign Secretary looks glum. We know that he was under orders from she who must be obeyed. The Foreign Secretary is a man of more liberal instincts. However, we must pose the question: is there anything that would induce the Foreign Secretary to resign? Perhaps the question answers itself.
As the hon. Member for Orpington (Mr. Stanbrook) said, there is no mention of the Commonwealth in the Government's amendment, despite the suggestions that were made at the Commonwealth Heads of Government meetings at Nassau and Vancouver. Was that a mere slip, or is it another illustration that the Commonwealth has been marginalised in foreign policy formulation?
At Nassau we agreed on an oil embargo. Yet at the end of last year the Government refused to co-operate with the United Nations committee that was inquiring into violations of the oil embargo. That was another signal of support to Pretoria. It was a signal that the Government ignores world opinion. The Government have not sent the Minister of State, the hon. and learned Member for Putney (Mr. Mellor), to the townships to make the same sort of remarks that he made in the Gaza strip.
In response to criticism, the Government merely dig more deeply into their bran tub of words of disapproval. The Prime Minister has said that she "condemns" the moves. The Foreign Secretary has said that he is "shocked and saddened." The Minister of State is "dismayed." Words are cheap.
I hope that when the Minister of State replies to the debate she will answer the question that has been asked by Labour Members—have the new measures of repression that the South African Government have taken in the past week led to any reassessment of policy by the Government? Will they change their policy as a result of those events?
The Labour party's policy on sanctions is well known. We believe that under the United Nations and in co-operation with our Commonwealth and EEC partners, comprehensive sanctions should be taken against South Africa. For a start, there should be airline sanctions and a coal boycott, which the Government, in co-operation with the German Government, prevented at the EEC summit.
Even if the Government rule out economic sanctions, there are a series of what the Prime Minister might call "measures" available to them. Without incurring any great cost she can still give clear signals to the white minority Government of South Africa and their supporters that we disapprove of what they are doing. Why do we still have a no-visa agreement with South Africa, which is a relic of the old Commonwealth relationship? Would not the abrogation of that agreement be a clear signal to South Africa of our position? Will we still treat South Africa diplomatically as if it were any other country? Mr. Birt,


who is the deputy director-general of the BBC, gave the South African ambassador a guided tour of the BBC last week. No doubt he told him about intimidation from the Government. Will we act in concert with our other European Community partners by downgrading our mission and possibly by removing the ambassador for some time? Even if we claim that our embassy in South Africa is playing a positive role, why cannot our ambassador show solidarity with those individuals and groups that have been banned by going to the UDF offices, by visiting Albertina Sisulu, or by meeting Archie Gumede and others? We believe that such shock treatment may disabuse those in South Africa who believe that they can get away with it because they have the support of the Prime Minister and the Government.
The Prime Minister is in a unique position.

Mr. Quentin Davies: rose—

Mr. Anderson: The Prime Minister is trusted in white South Africa. If she were to carry out some of the measures that have been suggested it would thus have a disproportionate effect on white opinion — those who currently hold the power in South Africa. The Prime Minister's gestures have given the impression to white South Africans that she is on their side, not that of the majority in that country.
Generations of blacks and progressive people in South Africa will look back with pride at those brave men and women whose voices have been temporarily stilled by the actions of the past week. Equally, generations of British people will look back with shame at a British Government, who at this critical time of test have only confirmed their policy of business as usual with apartheid.

The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Mrs. Lynda Chalker): No one with any understanding of the need for particiption in society by all races and creeds can suggest that the South African Government's latest actions are anything but a serious further step in the tragic chronicle of repressive action in South Africa. The House, and indeed the whole international community, is at one in roundly condemning these South African actions.
There is no doubt about Britain's position. The House heard my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister last Thursday deplore the South African Government's actions. My right hon. and learned Friend the Foreign Secretary issued an immediate condemnation which left no room for doubt about the Government's rejection of repression of whatever kind, but particularly on this scale and of this latest severity.
The action of the South African Government has been condemned here in Britain and all over the world. It has been condemned by business men in South Africa such as Gavin Relly who have been doing their best to bring social and economic reform to black South Africa. Jan Steyn, the chairman of the urban foundation, said only a few days ago that
the ability of organisations with strong community support to function is a key factor in determining whether such progress is possible.
Referring to the restrictions of last Thursday, 25 February he said:
These restrictions will severely hamper this progress.
No one is in any doubt that the action of the South African Government is totally repressive.
The British Government's views have been put over most forcibly, in public and in private, to the South African Government, here and in South Africa. We shall see whether they will be effective because there is more to be said. I continue to urge the House to back the Government in our efforts to get the South African Government to withdraw all the restrictions forthwith.
The House can be assured that the South African Government have been left in no doubt of Britain's views on the lasting damage caused by these measures to the prospects for peaceful change.
What then is the way ahead that can bring about the end of apartheid, to which we are committed, and the transition to genuinely non-racial representative government in South Africa? First, let me say that I have not heard a single argument today from the Opposition which suggests that their policies will do anything to improve the tragic situation in South Africa. Maybe their rhetoric assuages their consciences.

Mr. Nellist: Will the Minister give way instead of reading her speech?

Mrs. Chalker: The hon. Gentleman will be well aware that some of his colleagues type some of their remarks. As he can see, I have been sitting here typing.
Opposition Members have used rhetoric to assuage their consciences, but that does nothing whatsoever to bring about the major changes necessary to help the black majority into governing in their own country.

Mr. Nellist: Will the Minister give way?

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Harold Walker): Order. The Minister clearly is not giving way.

Mr. Nellist: She has not seen me yet.

Mrs. Chalker: It is impossible not to see the hon. Gentleman with one's eyes, even if one does not intend to give way to him. I particularly regret the narrow interpretation of our responsibilities put forward by the Opposition—

Mr. Nellist: Will the Minister give way?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman knows that he must not persist.

Mrs. Chalker: For the Opposition, opposing apartheid seems to mean one thing on ly—sanctions and yet more sanctions. As my right hon. and learned Friend said to the House, punitive economic sanctions are not the answer.
There are more effective ways of contributing to progress and to peaceful change in South Africa than blighting the country's economic development. We can make that contribution at the same time as expressing our total revulsion and rejection of apartheid.
I say to the hon. Member for Swansea, East (Mr. Anderson) that I do not believe that the events of the past weeks have done anything whatsoever to take us forward with the awful problems of South Africa. The hon. Gentleman may ask for immediate judgments and for changes of course. He may ask for clear signals to the white minority Government. Those signals have been given and will continue to be given. I shall examine all that he said, as I shall examine all reports mentioned in the debate, and no voice will be stilled in condemnation.

Mr. Nellist: Will the Minister give way?

Mrs. Chalker: No. I am not giving way.
There are more effective ways, and indeed we shall consider them. I believe that, above all else, we have to maintain the effective contact with all cross-sections of the people of all colours and creeds in South Africa.
Opposition Members have called for the withdrawal of Her Majesty's ambassador and EC ambassadors. That idea may be superficially attractive but would do no good to those in South Africa who are oppressed by the actions of the South African Government, and with whom we must keep in contact.

Mr. Nellist: Some minutes ago, the Minister asked for constructive suggestions to improve the lot of those who are oppressed in South Africa. She also spoke about relationships between people. Given the mounting evidence of the murder and death squads operated by Chief Buthelezi and Inkatha, will she now announce that the Inkatha office opened last autumn in St. John's Wood will be closed by the Government as a clear signal that when they see terrorist activity they do something about it?

Mrs. Chalker: The hon. Member's point did not relate to what I was saying. If the hon. Gentleman expects sudden snap judgments such as that to be answered, he is asking the wrong person.
There is an important job to be done on the spot by our ambassador in South Africa. I believe that those who have argued that he should come home have no idea of the range, depth and breadth of the contacts that he makes, nor indeed of what he is doing.
I must say to the hon. Member for Sheffield, Central (Mr. Caborn) that I shall look at the letters which he cited. The way in which he expressed his speech was interesting and I shall certainly examine the letters.
The right hon. Member for Plymouth, Devonport (Dr. Owen) raised the question of what could be done. I am sad that the right hon. Member is not in his place at the moment, because it is important that we take seriously suggestions made by all hon. Members, if they warrant it. As for the cutting of air links, it would be extremely difficult to achieve an effective ban as it would only give away the air traffic to other nations. To be effective, such a ban would have to be universal and that would be impossible to achieve in today's air transport market. If we are to take up other suggestions, they must do something to affect the awful situation in South Africa and not be impossible to achieve.
I must say to the right hon. Member for Devonport, through Hansard, that those who would be most hurt by such a ban would be those who fly backwards and forwards between Europe and South Africa trying to bring about change. The hard-line Afrikaners who went to that despicable rally on Saturday hardly ever travel outside South Africa. Perhaps if they had travelled outside South Africa they might understand something about the way in which the rest of the world works together and would be in a better position to back up what they say. I doubt whether they would continue to hold such outdated views if they did travel. The people that the House would wish to harm by cutting air links would not be harmed.
The right hon. Member for Tweeddale, Ettrick and Lauderdale (Mr. Steel) spoke of alleged breaches in arms control that he put to the Foreign Office, and he asked when he would get a reply. I agree that these matters have

been extremely difficult to research. We are consulting other Government Departments. I regret that I cannot give him an answer this afternoon, but I insist that those investigations shall be the most thorough possible. I shall reply to the allegations that he sent to my right hon. and learned Friend as soon as possible when I have some assurance of the validity or otherwise of the claims that have been made and of the evidence on which we shall base our reply. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will accept that.
The right hon. Gentleman asked me also about plastic covers for identity cards—the seals for identity cards. The export of transparent plastic covers is not a breach of any British restrictive measure. Uniform identity cards are issued to all South Africans. They are not the equivalent of pass books. The pass laws and the influx control have been abolished.
I was asked further about destabilisation. My right hon. and learned Friend the Foreign Secretary condemned destabilisation by South Africa of neighbouring countries. I reiterate that condemnation. We reject violence from whatever quarter it may come. There is no justification for cross-border violence in the front-line states or in any others. In no way does that detract from out argument that punitive economic sanctions would have a destablising effect in the region. They would have considerable cost for all South Africa's neighbours. We call on the South African Government to desist from destabilisation. For those reasons, we aim to support the front-line states in defence of their borders and, indeed, the transport links that are necessary for them to become economically independent of South Africa.
One of the most positive things that the British Government have done has been to provide aid, aid for black South Africans. I understand what my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham, East (Mr. Knowles) said.
The students whom we sponsor and will go on sponsoring go alongside the help that we have given to trade unionists. All such aid is designed to assist those in South Africa who can have an influence on the future. We have said many times that the only way in which the problems of apartheid in South Africa will be solved is through dialogue. That dialogue can occur only if people are equipped to combat the false dialogue of members of the South African Government. That is why we wish to support leaders of the black community in our programmes in South Africa and in the front-line states. We are determined not to see the undermining of the economies of front-line states by attacks from over the border. It is in that context that we give £819 million in bilateral aid to the Southern African Development Coordination Conference states together with the multilateral aid from which they benefit.
Without doubt, the steps of recent days are a massive further setback in the search for dialogue. To determine the best way ahead, one must consider most carefully what is happening on the ground in South Africa—another good reason for the efforts of Her Majesty's ambassador in Pretoria. When considering what is to be done, we need to be sure that we take into account the legitimate interests of all concerned—black, white and coloured—in South Africa. That is why informal contacts between South Africans of all races must continue. That is why we shall not influence the South African Government unless we can get them into dialogue. We shall continue to press them to resume the process of legislative reform. We shall


continue to implement the restrictive measures against South Africa that we previously agreed to take as a political signal of our earnest determination for progress. There has been, and will be, no let-up in our representations against human rights abuses, in particular — I was asked about this by hon. Members on both sides of the House—detention without charge, torture, and imprisonment of children.

Mr. Bruce Grocott: rose—

Mrs. Chalker: I shall not give way. I have only a couple of minutes left. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will forgive me.
We shall continue to press for the release of Nelson Mandela and other political prisoners and an end to the ban on the ANC and other political parties in the context of the suspension of violence on all sides. We shall continue our practical and financial assistance to black South Africans. We shall continue to oppose the destabilisation that has been conducted by the South African Government.
The positive approach of the Government has no alternative. There is no alternative to patient, determined advocacy and pressure. We shall do all that we can to find an opportunity for constructive mediation whenever it may occur. We shall indeed, with our Commonwealth and European partners, be ready for the time when we might take external initiatives, but for the moment there is none to take.
Sanctions will only worsen the existing situation. Punitive economic sanctions will not improve it. Hon. Members on both sides of the House have united in condemning the latest repressive measures. We share the universally expressed sense of frustration. But thoroughly negative as the developments are, we shall not be forced into action for action's sake, nor into imposing measures that cannot improve an already almost impossible situation.
The end of apartheid will, as one Opposition Member was honest enough to say, take a long time — longer than any of us would wish—but it will come about only from within, by negotiation and dialogue. The Government are determined to help wherever we can. We shall continue to do so until the last vestiges of apartheid have gone and repressive measures are totally repealed.

Question put:—

The House divided: Ayes 209, Noes 265.

Division No. 197]
[7.15 pm


AYES


Adams, Allen (Paisley N)
Bradley, Keith


Allen, Graham
Bray, Dr Jeremy


Alton, David
Brown, Gordon (D'mline E)


Anderson, Donald
Brown, Nicholas (Newcastle E)


Archer, Rt Hon Peter
Brown, Ron (Edinburgh Leith)


Armstrong, Hilary
Buchan, Norman


Banks, Tony (Newham NW)
Buckley, George J.


Barnes, Mrs Rosie (Greenwich)
Caborn, Richard


Barron, Kevin
Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)


Battle, John
Campbell, Ron (Blyth Valley)


Beckett, Margaret
Carlile, Alex (Mont'g)


Beith, A. J.
Cartwright, John


Benn, Rt Hon Tony
Clark, Dr David (S Shields)


Bermingham, Gerald
Clarke, Tom (Monklands W)


Bidwell, Sydney
Clay, Bob


Blair, Tony
Clelland, David


Blunkett, David
Clwyd, Mrs Ann


Boateng, Paul
Cohen, Harry


Boyes, Roland
Cook, Frank (Stockton N)





Cook, Robin (Livingston)
Livingstone, Ken


Corbett, Robin
Livsey, Richard


Corbyn, Jeremy
Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)


Cousins, Jim
Lofthouse, Geoffrey


Cryer, Bob
McAllion, John


Cummings, John
McAvoy, Thomas


Cunningham, Dr John
McCartney, Ian


Dalyell, Tarn
Macdonald, Calum A.


Darling, Alistair
McFall, John


Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)
McKay, Allen (Barnsley West)


Davis, Terry (B'ham Hodge H'l)
McKelvey, William


Dewar, Donald
McLeish, Henry


Dixon, Don
Maclennan, Robert


Dobson, Frank
McNamara, Kevin


Doran, Frank
McWilliam, John


Douglas, Dick
Madden, Max


Duffy, A. E. P.
Mahon, Mrs Alice


Dunnachie, Jimmy
Marshall, David (Shettleston)


Dunwoody, Hon Mrs Gwyneth
Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)


Eadie, Alexander
Martin, Michael J. (Springburn)


Eastham, Ken
Martlew, Eric


Evans, John (St Helens N)
Maxton, John


Ewing, Harry (Falkirk E)
Meacher, Michael


Ewing, Mrs Margaret (Moray)
Meale, Alan


Fatchett, Derek
Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)


Fearn, Ronald
Michie, Mrs Ray (Arg'l &amp; Bute)


Field, Frank (Birkenhead)
Millan, Rt Hon Bruce


Fields, Terry (L'pool B G'n)
Mitchell, Austin (G't Grimsby)


Fisher, Mark
Moonie, Dr Lewis


Flannery, Martin
Morgan, Rhodri


Flynn, Paul
Morley, Elliott


Foot, Rt Hon Michael
Morris, Rt Hon A. (W'shawe)


Foster, Derek
Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)


Foulkes, George
Mowlam, Marjorie


Fyfe, Maria
Mullin, Chris


Galbraith, Sam
Murphy, Paul


Garrett, John (Norwich South)
Nellist, Dave


Garrett, Ted (Wallsend)
O'Brien, William


Godman, Dr Norman A.
O'Neill, Martin


Gould, Bryan
Owen, Rt Hon Dr David


Graham, Thomas
Patchett, Terry


Grant, Bernie (Tottenham)
Pike, Peter L.


Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)
Powell, Ray (Ogmore)


Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)
Prescott, John


Grocott, Bruce
Primarolo, Dawn


Hardy, Peter
Quin, Ms Joyce


Harman, Ms Harriet
Randall, Stuart


Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy
Redmond, Martin


Haynes, Frank
Rees, Rt Hon Merlyn


Healey, Rt Hon Denis
Reid, Dr John


Heffer, Eric S.
Richardson, Jo


Henderson, Doug
Roberts, Allan (Bootle)


Hinchliffe, David
Robertson, George


Hogg, N. (C'nauld &amp; Kilsyth)
Robinson, Geoffrey


Home Robertson, John
Rogers, Allan


Hood, Jimmy
Rooker, Jeff


Howarth, George (Knowsley N)
Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)


Howells, Geraint
Rowlands, Ted


Hughes, John (Coventry NE)
Ruddock, Joan


Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)
Sedgemore, Brian


Hughes, Roy (Newport E)
Sheerman, Barry


Hughes, Sean (Knowsley S)
Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert


Hughes, Simon (Southwark)
Shore, Rt Hon Peter


Illsley, Eric
Short, Clare


Ingram, Adam
Skinner, Dennis


Janner, Greville
Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)


John, Brynmor
Smith, C. (Isl'ton &amp; F'bury)


Jones, Barry (Alyn &amp; Deeside)
Soley, Clive


Jones, Ieuan (Ynys Môn)
Spearing, Nigel


Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S W)
Steel, Rt Hon David


Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald
Steinberg, Gerry


Kennedy, Charles
Stott, Roger


Kinnock, Rt Hon Neil
Strang, Gavin


Kirkwood, Archy
Straw, Jack


Lambie, David
Taylor, Matthew (Truro)


Lamond, James
Thomas, Dr Dafydd Elis


Leadbitter, Ted
Thompson, Jack (Wansbeck)


Leighton, Ron
Turner, Dennis


Lestor, Joan (Eccles)
Wall, Pat


Litherland, Robert
Wallace, James






Walley, Joan
Wise, Mrs Audrey


Warded, Gareth (Gower)
Worthington, Tony


Wareing, Robert N.
Young, David (Bolton SE)


Wigley, Dafydd



Williams, Rt Hon Alan
Tellers for the Ayes:


Williams, Alan W. (Carm'then)
Mr. Alun Michael and


Wilson, Brian
Mrs. Llin Golding.


Winnick, David



NOES


Adley, Robert
Dorrell, Stephen


Alexander, Richard
Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James


Alison, Rt Hon Michael
Dover, Den


Allason, Rupert
Dunn, Bob


Amery, Rt Hon Julian
Durant, Tony


Amess, David
Dykes, Hugh


Amos, Alan
Evennett, David


Arbuthnot, James
Fairbairn, Nicholas


Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)
Fallon, Michael


Arnold, Tom (Hazel Grove)
Farr, Sir John


Ashby, David
Favell, Tony


Aspinwall, Jack
Fenner, Dame Peggy


Atkins, Robert
Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)


Baker, Rt Hon K. (Mole Valley)
Fookes, Miss Janet


Baker, Nicholas (Dorset N)
Forman, Nigel


Baldry, Tony
Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)


Banks, Robert (Harrogate)
Forth, Eric


Batiste, Spencer
Fox, Sir Marcus


Beaumont-Dark, Anthony
Franks, Cecil


Bellingham, Henry
Freeman, Roger


Bendall, Vivian
French, Douglas


Bennett, Nicholas (Pembroke)
Fry, Peter


Benyon, W.
Gale, Roger


Biggs-Davison, Sir John
Gardiner, George


Blackburn, Dr John G.
Garel-Jones, Tristan


Bonsor, Sir Nicholas
Gill, Christopher


Boscawen, Hon Robert
Gilmour, Rt Hon Sir Ian


Boswell, Tim
Goodhart, Sir Philip


Bottomley, Mrs Virginia
Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles


Bowden, A (Brighton K'pto'n)
Gorst, John


Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich)
Gow, Ian


Bowis, John
Gower, Sir Raymond


Boyson, Rt Hon Dr Sir Rhodes
Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)


Braine, Rt Hon Sir Bernard
Greenway, John (Ryedale)


Brandon-Bravo, Martin
Gregory, Conal


Brazier, Julian
Griffiths, Sir Eldon (Bury St E')


Bright, Graham
Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth N)


Brown, Michael (Brigg &amp; Cl't's)
Grist, Ian


Browne, John (Winchester)
Ground, Patrick


Bruce, Ian (Dorset South)
Grylls, Michael


Buchanan-Smith, Rt Hon Alick
Hamilton, Hon Archie (Epsom)


Buck, Sir Antony
Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)


Budgen, Nicholas
Hanley, Jeremy


Burns, Simon
Hannam, John


Burt, Alistair
Hargreaves, A. (B'ham H'll Gr')


Butcher, John
Hargreaves, Ken (Hyndburn)


Butler, Chris
Harris, David


Butterfill, John
Haselhurst, Alan


Carttiss, Michael
Hawkins, Christopher


Cash, William
Hayes, Jerry


Chalker, Rt Hon Mrs Lynda
Hayhoe, Rt Hon Sir Barney


Channon, Rt Hon Paul
Hayward, Robert


Chapman, Sydney
Heathcoat-Amory, David


Chope, Christopher
Heddle, John


Clark, Hon Alan (Plym'th S'n)
Hicks, Robert (Cornwall SE)


Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)
Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L.


Clark, Sir W. (Croydon S)
Hind, Kenneth


Colvin, Michael
Hogg, Hon Douglas (Gr'th'm)


Conway, Derek
Holt, Richard


Coombs, Simon (Swindon)
Hordern, Sir Peter


Cope, John
Howarth, G. (Cannock &amp; B'wd)


Couchman, James
Howe, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey


Critchley, Julian
Howell, Rt Hon David (G'dford)


Currie, Mrs Edwina
Howell, Ralph (North Norfolk)


Curry, David
Hughes, Robert G. (Harrow W)


Davies, Q. (Stamf'd &amp; Spald'g)
Hunt, David (Wirral W)


Davis, David (Boothferry)
Hunt, John (Ravensbourne)


Day, Stephen
Hurd, Rt Hon Douglas


Devlin, Tim
Irvine, Michael


Dickens, Geoffrey
Irving, Charles





Jack, Michael
Paice, James


Jackson, Robert
Patnick, Irvine


Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey
Raffan, Keith


Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)
Rhodes James, Robert


Jones, Robert B (Herts W)
Riddick, Graham


Jopling, Rt Hon Michael
Rost, Peter


Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine
Ryder, Richard


Key, Robert
Sainsbury, Hon Tim


King, Roger (B'ham N'thfield)
Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)


Kirkhope, Timothy
Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)


Knapman, Roger
Sims, Roger


Knight, Dame Jill (Edgbaston)
Skeet, Sir Trevor


Knowles, Michael
Smith, Sir Dudley (Warwick)


Knox, David
Squire, Robin


Lamont, Rt Hon Norman
Steen, Anthony


Lang, Ian
Stern, Michael


Latham, Michael
Stevens, Lewis


Lawrence, Ivan
Stewart, Allan (Eastwood)


Leigh, Edward (Gainsbor'gh)
Stewart, Andy (Sherwood)


Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark
Stewart, Ian (Hertfordshire N)


Lightbown, David
Stokes, John


Lilley, Peter
Stradling Thomas, Sir John


Lloyd, Sir Ian (Havant)
Sumberg, David


Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)
Summerson, Hugo


Lord, Michael
Tapsell, Sir Peter


Luce, Rt Hon Richard
Taylor, Ian (Esher)


Lyell, Sir Nicholas
Taylor, John M (Solihull)


McCrindle, Robert
Taylor, Teddy (S'end E)


Macfarlane, Sir Neil
Tebbit, Rt Hon Norman


MacKay, Andrew (E Berkshire)
Temple-Morris, Peter


Maclean, David
Thompson, D. (Calder Valley)


McLoughlin, Patrick
Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)


McNair-Wilson, M. (Newbury)
Thorne, Neil


McNair-Wilson, P. (New Forest)
Thurnham, Peter


Madel, David
Townend, John (Bridlington)


Major, Rt Hon John
Townsend, Cyril D. (B'heath)


Malins, Humfrey
Tredinnick, David


Mans, Keith
Trippier, David


Maples, John
Twinn, Dr Ian


Marland, Paul
Vaughan, Sir Gerard


Marlow, Tony
Waddington, Rt Hon David


Marshall, John (Hendon S)
Walden, George


Marshall, Michael (Arundel)
Walker, Bill (T'side North)


Martin, David (Portsmouth S)
Walker, Rt Hon P. (W'cester)


Maude, Hon Francis
Waller, Gary


Mayhew, Rt Hon Sir Patrick
Walters, Dennis


Meyer, Sir Anthony
Ward, John


Miller, Hal
Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)


Mills, Iain
Watts, John


Miscampbell, Norman
Wheeler, John


Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)
Whitney, Ray


Mitchell, David (Hants NW)
Widdecombe, Ann


Moate, Roger
Wiggin, Jerry


Monro, Sir Hector
Wilkinson, John


Montgomery, Sir Fergus
Wilshire, David


Moore, Rt Hon John
Winterton, Mrs Ann


Morris, M (N'hampton S)
Winterton, Nicholas


Morrison, Hon Sir Charles
Wood, Timothy


Moss, Malcolm
Woodcock, Mike


Moynihan, Hon Colin
Yeo, Tim


Mudd, David



Neubert, Michael
Tellers for the Noes:


Newton, Rt Hon Tony
Mr. Alan Howarth and


Nicholls, Patrick
Mr. Kenneth Carlisle.


Onslow, Rt Hon Cranley

Question accordingly negatived.
Question, That the proposed words be there added, put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No. 30 (Questions on amendments) and agreed to.
MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER forthwith declared the Main Question, as amended, to be agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House deplores the restrictions announced by the South African Government on 24th February against 18 extra-parliamentary organisations and certain leading opposition figures; calls for the repeal of these measures, which suppress legitimate, peaceful activity; reaffirms its


opposition to punitive economic sanctions and its support for Her Majesty's Government's policy of practical and constructive action in Southern Africa; and calls on the South African Government to take urgent steps to enter into dialogue with free and freely chosen representatives of the black community, with the aim of bringing the repugnant apartheid system to an end and establishing a non-racial, representative system of government.

Mr. Nellist: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Given the hollow and unsatisfactory answer by the Minister of State to the question about the Inkatha office in St. John's Wood, and also because of the unfortunate shortness of the previous debate, I give notice that I shall table early-day motions this week naming those who lead the death squads of Inkatha in Natal. I shall raise on the Adjournment of the House the Government's support for that organisation, through continuing to tolerate that office in St. John's Wood.

British Science

Mr. Jack Straw: I beg to move,
That this House, noting with great anxiety the serious crisis which now affects this country's scientific base, and further noting the profound disappointment of the Advisory Board for the Research Councils that public expenditure plans for the science budget are insufficient to avert a reduction in the volume of scientific activity, or to allow for the strategic reshaping of the scientific base, condemns the complacent and regressive attitude of Her Majesty's Government; and calls for a real commitment to proper Government support for scientific, medical and technological research and development in higher education, research institutions and industry, so that this country's intellectual, industrial and social future tray be secured.
The Government's furtiveness about their science record is well illustrated by the fact that they have refused many demands for a debate on science by both sides of the House. Therefore, the Opposition have had to devote one of their precious half-day Supply debates to that important issue. The last Government debate on science, according to the best researches of the Library, was on 14 June 1985, two and three quarter years ago.
Britain now faces a crisis in science more serious than at any time since the war. There is virtually no one in the universities, the research councils or industry who disagrees with that diagnosis, except the Government. Their mood is one of complacent self-congratulation, with back-slapping for an acclaimed 15 per cent. real terms increase in the science budget since 1979, but that claim is confounded both by former Ministers and by the Government's own hand-picked Advisory Board for the Research Councils. That board consists of the country's leading academic scientists, senior science advisers to the Government and captains of industry such as Sir Francis Tombs, the chairman of Rolls-Royce, and Dr. Roberts, the joint managing director of GEC. In a letter to the Secretary of State that was published recently, the board, giving its advice on the science budget allocation for 1988–91, welcomed the increases in the science budget that the Secretary of State announced on 3 November, but was
profoundly disappointed that these are insufficient either to avert a reduction in the volume of scientific activity or to allow for the necessary strategic reshaping of the science base.
Anybody who has read through that document will be clear that it is a damning indictment of the Government's record. The board says that even
Without any allowance for further cost increases above average inflation, the amount of research which the Science Budget buys will … be between 2 per cent. and 3 per cent. lower in 1990–91 than was planned for this year.
The board continues:
That reduction compares starkly with the cumulative 8 per cent. growth in the UK's national wealth … which the Government is forecasting over the same period.
The board describes the science budget as a dismal background against which it had to make its decisions. It concludes:
In our expenditure advice to the Secretary of State in June, we stated that the UK science base was at a watershed. The Government's revised expenditure plans for the Science Budget do not provide the means to move our nation's scientific capability towards the twenty-first century. We remain precariously poised at the great divide and are beginning to slip in the wrong direction. A great opportunity has, sadly, been missed.
Recognising the force of that criticism, the Government seek, as they do in their amendment, to evade


responsibility for what is happening to science, in two ways. First, they tell us to look at the total Government spend on research and development and to compare it as a share of gross domestic product with that of other countries. But our share of expenditure compared with that of other countries is respectable only when full account is taken of our expenditure on defence-related research and development. The former Minister for Information Technology, who resigned partly because of his argument with the Government over the lack of expenditure for civil research on space, said in The Times on 16 December:
There is a bit of sophistry in what the Government's saying about this because everybody knows that half of the Government R&amp;D is defence and this is still a problem really.
That was underlined by a fascinating study of research policy in the British Medical Journal on 6 February 1988 by Richard Smith, who says that if we leave out defence, Britain does poorly, and that
As a percentage of gross domestic product it already spends less on civil research than all the other countries belonging to the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development … —and is spending less as the other countries spend more.
The figures given in that study not only spell that out, but spell out the fact that most other major industrialised countries and some that are not, including Spain and Iceland, have increased their GDP expenditure on research since 1978 far faster than this country.
Secondly, the Government claim that there has been a 15 per cent. increase in real terms in the science budget since 1979. However, that is a reference only to the amount that is spent on research councils and other minor expenditures. That is almost entirely offset by the decay of the dual support system by which research is funded by University Grants Committee block grant, a matter to which I shall return, and is also offset by higher than general inflation, which has been accepted as affecting the Health Service, but not, as far as I can judge, research.
The cries of anguish about the state of science are widespread. Everybody is aware of the cry that came from Dr. Max Perutz, the former director of the laboratory of molecular biology at Cambridge, who said:
The brilliance of British science is one of the country's greatest cultural achievements, if not the greatest, but it is a fragile flower as I know from Austria, my country of birth. Once destroyed by bad politics it cannot be restored.
The Secretary of State may wish to dismiss Dr. Perutz as a self-serving academic—

The Secretary of State for Education and Science (Mr. Kenneth Baker): No.

Mr. Straw: I am glad to hear that.
The Daily Telegraph, of all papers, and during the election campaign, published a searing indictment of the Government's commitment to research. It quoted Sir David Phillips FRS, the chairman of the Advisory Board for the Research Councils, as saying:
A British scientist can hardly travel anywhere without being subjected to pity by others".
Sir George Porter, president of the Royal Society, was quoted as saying:
The morale of the scientific community has fallen to its lowest point this century".

That understanding is also shared by those in industry, as anyone who talks to those who are involved in scientific-based industries knows only too well. That was underlined by the article in the Financial Times last Monday, which quoted Dr. Alan White, research director at the United Kingdom subsidiary of Ciba-Geigy, as saying that he was
concerned about the pressures on universities to put more effort on short-term contract research rather than basic medical studies.
Dr. John Griffin, director of the Association of the British Pharmaceutical Industry, is reported as saying that
the problems in academic research mean fewer young people want to pursue a career in the scientific aspects of medicine.
Dr. Griffin says:
I am worried about the effects this will have on the pharmaceutical industry in the 1990s.
There are many other symptoms of the crisis. There is the reduction in the success rate of applications to the research councils, which have fallen to a point where, according to the head of one major research institute,
application is discouraged and too large a proportion of creative time is spent on grant proposals.
Alpha-rated applications are those which are judged as being of outstanding merit by the relevant research council committee. For the Medical Research Council, the proportion of alpha-rated applications that were accepted for funding was down to 63 per cent. last year compared with 83 per cent. two years before. For the Science and Engineering Research Council, it is now down to 50 per cent. One illustration of the distortions that are now arising in the science budget because of the squeeze is the fact that today we are spending as much money on high energy particle physics as on the whole of the rest of physics, biology, chemistry and mathematics research combined. That balance cannot be right.
A key factor is the expenditure on CERN. I hope that the Secretary of State will say something about the Government's approach to the continued funding of CERN, given its international importance— indeed, its symbolism—in terms of European collaboration. There is a clear case for continuing funding, but, as the ABRC said in paragraph 11 of its latest advice, there is also a strong case for treating it separately. Indeed, some people have urged that it should be treated partly as a charge against the FCO budget, but I shall not pursue that line. What I want to know from the Secretary of State is whether he is willing to accept the ABRC's advice that CERN cannot continue to eat into research funds for other aspects of the pure sciences.

Mr. Patrick Thompson: Will the hon. Gentleman make his point a little clearer? I have received representations from people in this country who are working on high energy particle physics, particularly from Oxford university. Is the hon. Gentleman saying that we should reduce our contribution to that to help the other sciences? What exactly is he asking the Government to do?

Mr. Straw: I am not saying that, but I am happy to make my point again. I am saying that the Government ought to earmark funding for CERN, so as not to undermine research in biology, chemistry, maths and physics, whose funding is now only equal to that on CERN.

Mr. Martin Flannery: Does my hon. Friend agree that not only CERN but every one of the research councils must pay a very large amount to join the international organisations? In fact, the amount


is so large that it plays quite a role in the amount available. Should not the Government consider the matter seriously, with a view to helping the research councils to pay for their affiliation to international organisations?

Mr. Shaw: My hon. Friend is right. There is the general problem of a squeeze, which is accentuated by the continuing commitments to international organisations and institutions such as CERN—which it is right that we should continue to have.
Above all, as I said earlier, there has been the erosion of the system of dual support, by which research at universities has been supported partly by research council grants direct, and partly indirectly by the University Grants Committee block grant, over which the universities have had much more discretion and latitude. That erosion is compounded by the Government's refusal, when contracting for research, to bear the overhead costs of much research, and by an undermining of the infrastructure. Alongside that, the squeeze has led to an unbalanced aid structure in our universities, offset only inadequately by new blood money.
Judging by his amendment, the Secretary of State may well talk about the additional funding that is going to universities following his great success with the Chief Secretary. But, for example, £156 million of that is being held back over the next three years simply to pay for the costs of redundancy and restructuring, and will not be used to fund research or teaching.
If our first charge against the Government is that of inadequate funding, the second is of the creation of a major skill shortage. The facts are startling. The numbers of students registering for A-level courses in physics, biology and chemistry dropped by nearly 10 per cent. in the two years between 1985 and 1987, compared with a decrease in the age group of only 3·8 per cent. Universities and polytechnics face increasing difficulty in recruiting suitable entrants for most science and technology courses, and in keeping the best people doing doctoral or postdoctoral research. A 1984 survey by the Department of Education and Science showed that about half of physics and maths teachers did not follow the subject that they were teaching as one of the main subjects in their own degree level courses.
Despite the Government's bursary scheme, the latest figures show an 11 per cent. drop in the number of people going forward for additional teacher training in maths, and a 14 per cent. drop in those going forward for initial teacher training in physics. There are serious deficiencies in the provision of laboratories' equipment and books, which have been highlighted by Her Majesty's inspectors' reports year by year, and today by the survey by the National Union of Teachers. The Government could find £80 million to pay for a few city technology colleges, but they cannot find the money to establish and improve a science base in our schools.
Besides that, there is the simple fact of the brain drain. Science is international, and we accept that there should be a great interchange of people and ideas. However, there is now serious anxiety about the quality of people who leave this country. The Committee of Vice-Chancellors and Principals made the point when commenting on the Royal Society's report, which was published at the end of June. Sir Mark Richmond, the chairman of the committee, said:
Counting heads to prove that roughly the same number of scientists come to Britain as leave is meaningless when

those who go are among our brightest young people, leaving to take up permanent posts; while those who come here do so only for a short time, to broaden their experience … the report demonstrates that salary is not the main reason why our people go. There is an urgent need for security in academic appointments, for better facilities in universities ard for the research councils to be funded at a level where they can support a much higher proportion of the best research proposals they receive.

Mr. Allan Rogers: Is my hon. Friend aware that the cutbacks have affected bodies outside the universities as well? Cutbacks in employment in the Natural Environment Research Council have led to many scientists — geologists, geophysicists, geomorphologists and so on — having to take jobs abroad. That has caused a rundown in the balance of natural scientists working in the council, which is so essential for the preservation of sites of special scientific interest, for example.

Mr. Straw: I accept that. No research council, even the Medical Research Council, is in more serious difficulty than the Natural Environment Research Council, which today announced an absolute drop in its funding.
Our third charge against the Government is the most fundamental: that their attitude to science is too short-term and too short-sighted. In their concern to achieve better value for money and more support from industry — both laudable aims in themselves — they fail to appreciate the critical importance of pure research; or, if they do appreciate it, they fail to provide an environment in which it can flourish. As we know, the Government are obsessed with markets as the cure-all for everything. But every advanced industrialised society that aspires to a decent scientific base understands that industry — the market — cannot provide funds or support for all research.
Yes, British industry should do more. Its record of support for research and development is one of the most appalling in the western world. British industry is itself constrained by a financial system in the City which has appallingly limited horizons, and does not accept the importance of long-term investment in research and development, as do other nations.
By definition, a major part of any research undertaken by industry is bound to be goal-driven. A firm says to its researchers, "Find a drug to do this," or "Find the electronic technology to do that." The Government fail to understand that none of that goal-driven research would be possible without the base of research initiated by curiosity or speculation, in which bright, inquisitive people are given the environment, security and resources to follow their instincts to an end—or., often, to no end at all.
The goal-driven research project at present is that on AIDS. There is a clear goal: to find a cure. The project is making considerable progress, but the Government must understand that there would be no goal-driven research in AIDS if 30 years ago a few mavericks driven by curiosity —Crick and Watson, and others at Cambridge — had not been messing about, wasting time and money. They were criticised for it, but after a while they discovered DNA and the double helix, and initiated the work of a series of other people, who also messed about for many years in laboratories trying to understand genetic structures.
Another example is Alexander Fleming and the development of penicillin. Penicillin was developed in the


war in goal-driven research because of the concern to find a cure for infections. But that achievement would never have been possible had not Fleming been messing about 15 years before discovering, before putting the research aside for a time, that some moulds could kill other bacteria.
There are plenty of contemporary examples. There is one from my local university of Leeds, where the biodegradable glass pellet was developed to solve mineral and vitamin deficiencies in sheep and cows. It arose as a result of conversations between scientists in the department of animal physiology and in the department of ceramics who were funded out of block grant money and who could not get money from the research council for initial development. They have produced a world beater, and Pilkingtons are selling it across the world.
We have the example of much more applied technology in the shape of the Loughborough lockstitch pile fabric machine about which I know a little because it is made by a firm in my constituency. Professor Wry and Mr. Ward, who designed it on the back of a British Railways menu on the train to Loughborough from London, were funded out of block grant. Initially, they received no funding from the SRC.
There are scores more examples. The simple truth is that if curiosity-driven research dries up, there can be no applied research to follow. The shift of Government policy is away from curiosity-initiated or pure research to specific, targeted research. They seem to expect that the result, as well as the goal, of the research should be within the horizon before it is funded.
I should like to consider funding and concentration and specialisation — the so-called XRT proposals of the advisory board. The Opposition do not believe for one second that the present distribution of scientific endeavour, which has happened in a random way, is perfect. We certainly accept that changes in scientific discovery and initiative require institutional changes to reflect them. There always has been discrimination, but discrimination in terms of funding must be exercised project by project, department by department and subject by subject—not institution by institution. There are many great universities which have poor departments and there are many not so good universities which have great departments. It would be terribly short-sighted to write off whole institutions.
Universities must not be given gradings which are set in concrete for all time. Reputations change. Some R-rated departments may need to drop out and some T-rated departments may need to come into research. Any concentration needs new funding—much more than has been achieved. Everyone in private industry understands that if enormous changes such as these are to be initiated, they must be funded, but evidently the Government do not.
The parallel between the Government's attitude to the National Health Service and the science base is striking. We are now a land of great plenty. We have a Government who tell us that they are awash with money. The moral and political question is not whether the cash is available but how to spend it. We must decide on whether to spend it on tax cuts for the better off or to invest it in the future. Today's balance of payments figures, which show a current account deficit of £905 million, show that if we

spend it on consumption — tax cuts — that will be an investment in our competitors rather than in ourselves. If we spend it on science, it will be an investment in our future.
There is an overwhelming case for the Government to agree to the additional £100 million which the ABRC recommended. I hope to hear the Secretary of State saying that he has bullied or cajoled the philistines in the Treasury to achieve that end. The Government preach the philosophy of entrepreneurship and risk, but in science policy their cautious and centralist approach demands certainty where none is possible.
In the 15th and 16th centuries, Britain led the world in exploration of outer space — the new world — and accepted that for every expedition that succeeded, scores would fail. How ironic it is that in today's challenge of outer space beyond the universes and the inner space of human cells, the Government have abandoned entrepreneurship, risk-taking and imagination. By doing so, they will fail our nation in the next century.

Madam Deputy Speaker (Miss Betty Boothroyd): I must tell the House that Mr. Speaker has selected the amendment standing in the name of the Prime Minister.

The Secretary of State for Education and Science (Mr. Kenneth Baker): I beg to move, to leave out from "House" to the end of the Question and to add instead thereof,
'notes the essential and increasingly important contribution made by the science base in higher education and the research councils to the nation's economic and social development; applauds the achievements of Britain's scientists which are second only to those of the United States of America with its vastly greater resources; welcomes the 15 per cent. real terms increase in the science budget since 1979, the progress made by the University Grants Committee and research councils in promoting better value for money and responsiveness, and the new central machinery announced in Cm. 185 for considering science and technology priorities; and commends the Government's intention to take further steps to enhance the strength and quality of the science base and to ensure that research outcomes are better exploited to the United Kingdom's benefit.'.
I welcome this debate. It provides us with a valuable opportunity to pay tribute to the achievements of British scientists and to discuss the difficult issues which lie ahead concerning the future of the British science base, which have been well laid before us by the Advisory Board for the Research Councils. I also welcome it as an opportunity to dispel the myth which Opposition Members have propagated about the Government's parsimony and cuts in publicly funded academic research.
I should like to deal first with what the hon. Member for Blackburn (Mr. Straw) said about spending. Public spending on the science base—the dual funding system involving universities and research councils, to which the hon. Gentleman referred— will be about £1·4 billion in the coming financial year. This represents a real terms increase relative to general inflation of about 6 per cent. compared with the curret year, and of about 11 per cent. since 1979.
Internationally, our public spending on civil research and development does not compare unfavourably. The hon. Gentleman was not quite accurate in what he said in this regard. Government spending on non-defence research and development as a proportion of gross domestic product is above that of the United States and Japan, although a little below that of France and West


Germany. I accept that there are arguments in favour of our aiming higher, but hon. Members are woefully misinformed when they claim that we trail significantly behind all other industrial countries.

Dr. Jeremy Bray: What about industry's investment in research and development?

Mr. Baker: I shall come to that soon, and join in the hon. Member's condemnation.
Within our public spending on science, the science budget for the research councils has fared well. In 1988–89 it will total £699 million, which is over 15 per cent. more in real terms than when we came into office in 1979. That reflects the £160 million extra for the science budget over the next three years that I announced in November, following last year's public expenditure survey.
I am well aware that the ABRC put forward a reasoned case for an even larger increase, but there are many demands on the public purse and it was not possible to meet that bid in full. Nevertheless, we provided substantial additional resources which will ensure that scientific expenditure at least is held at the present level, and is at slightly more than that in the next two years. In the past two rounds I have been able to secure quite significant increases.
The £155 million for university restructuring includes new appointments. That is not entirely appreciated. When a department is restructured, it is not simply a matter of easing people out. One has to make sure that new blood comes in.
I must emphasise that our decisions on funding for science were taken in the knowledge that we shall respond later this year to the ABRC's discussion document, "A Strategy for the Science Base".
The hon. Member for Motherwell, South (Dr. Bray) mentioned industry's spending on research and development. I am afraid that that is a far less satisfactory feature of the present scene. United Kingdom industry spends far less than our competitors on research and development as a proporton of gross domestic product. The latest figures available from the OECD are for 1985, and show that industry's funding of research and development as a proportion of GDP totalled 1 per cent. in the United Kingdom, 1·3 per cent. in the United States, 1·8 per cent. in Japan and 1·6 per cent. in West Germany. To be fair, we seem to be in about the same position as France and Italy, but I am afraid that I am not satisfied with that. I do not think that any hon. Member is. The Government believe that there is a prime need for industry to increase the amount of research and development that it funds. The hon. Member for Blackburn made broadly the same point.
Our policies have transformed the British economy since 1979. It was one of the slowest growing in the 1960s and the 1970s, but it has been one of the fastest growing in the 1980s. Most companies are now much better placed to increase their investment in research and development than they have been for many years. During the past five years we have reduced corporation tax significantly—to 35 per cent. I hope that that will make companies keen to invest more in research and development, especially as they are nearly all showing increased profits. There has been a slight improvement. Figures published earlier this month showed that, after falling between 1981 and 1983, spending within industry as R and D rose by 12 per cent.

in real terms between 1983 and 1985, and by a further 7 per cent. between 1985 and 1986. However, one cannot afford to be complacent about such figures.

Mr. Tam Dalyell: I appreciate that the Secretary of State will have to await the report of the ABRC, but in the meantime is there any comfort that he can give to good researches in good departments of small universities, who are wondering whether they have a future? Heriot Watt, for example, has a distinguished physics department. What is its future, and can any comfort be given to it in the interim?

Mr. Baker: In my previous incarnation I happened to visit that physics department. It is an extremely good department and it has done some outstanding work on laser technology. The hon. Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell), in common with his hon. Friend the Member for Blackburn, raises questions about the RTX proposals, and it is important to discuss this matter. The question that arises is one of selectivity in research. That question must be faced head on, not only by us, but by other countries. No country can possibly maintain the full stretch of research in every possible discipline at full speed.
Last summer, in its advice on strategy, the ABRC judged that present policy would not maintain the international competitiveness of United Kingdom university research. The board put great weight on the need for faster progress and suggested that there should be a differentiation of research roles between higher education institutions. That was contained in the so-called RTX proposal. Therefore, some universities would do research, some would offer a combination, with the balance towards teaching.
Our consultations on that strategy advice have generated a considerable number of detailed and interesting responses. I have been impressed by the constructive way in which the scientific community has moved the debate forward — [Interruption.]—that is what my brief says. As hon. Members know, not many voices have been raised in support of the RTX proposal. Indeed, there has been a clamour of opposition to it. However, beneath that clamour there is a substantial ground swell in favour of greater concentrations of research provision, but focused on subjects rather than on institutions. That was the point raised by the hon. Member for Blackburn.
The ABRC has said that the science base is at a watershed. Britain's economic and social prosperity in the 21st century will depend significantly on whether our decisions about the organisation and funding of research are right. I assure hon. Members that I intend to make a considered statement later this year on the Government's policy objectives for the science base and the steps that we will be taking to achieve it. The hon. Member for Blackburn will learn from that statement that we will be considering especially the concentration on subjects.

Dr. Dafydd Elis Thomas: I want to ask about the regional aspect of specialisation in science research. At the University of Wales, where research is subject to peer review, the university gets its fair share of funding. However, the system falls down when we consider the dual funding system of the research councils. No research council has ever willingly established itself within Wales. Clearly, there is a £20 million sum to be made up to ensure that Wales gets its fair share of the


science budget. Will the Secretary of State address that problem in Wales, Scotland and some of the English regions?

Mr. Baker: Some good research is being done at the Welsh and Scottish universities. The distinction of certain departments of universities in both countries has been recognised by the UGC. We have had interesting debates in Committee about research council funding and the power that I have. It is an arm's length relationship, and I do not influence—nor did any of my predecessors— the exact amount paid in research council grants. I would not seek to do so. I shall draw the hon. Gentleman's remarks to the attention of the chairman of the ABRC.
We must also consider the importance of collaborative research between universities, polytechnics and research councils and industry. I believe that everyone agrees that there must be closer links. I should like to commend two particular schemes that are extremely effective. The first is the teaching company scheme, which I first came across when I was at the DTI. It was then in embryo form. The scheme creates a link between a particular university or institution and a company. The graduates from the university, often research assistants of one sort or another, work with the company on its particular processes. That is excellent. At the same time, the company is encouraged to recruit outstanding graduates. The scheme works well and we are currently spending about £10 million a year on it in support of 270 programmes. Of that sum £7 million is provided from public funds, half by the Science and Engineering Research Council and half by the DTI. The SERC will increase its contribution over the next three years, with a matching increase from the DTI. We want to see that scheme expanded by about one third in the future.
The second scheme is the Link initiative. About a month ago I attended a press conference with my noble Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry on this matter. It is an important programme that links institutions with particular companies in a consortium. At the press conference we announced five programmes concerning molecular electronics, advanced semi-conductor materials, industrial measurement systems, eukaryotics — essentially non-bacterial genetics — and nanotechnology. These programmes cover many areas of research. The total expenditure on them will be £83 million, of which half will come from public funds. I hope that more such programmes will be announced in the coming months, because they are extremely important.
A further example of collaborative endeavour, which is regional—it is not in Scotland or Wales, but it is in the north of England—is the new centre for exploitation of science and technology, which has been set up by industry and the City. We are providing £1 million over five years towards the cost of the centre and another £5 million is being contributed from industry. The centre will be located at the Manchester science park. I remember opening that park about five years ago when it was just a heap of rubble. The appointment of the chief executive of the centre has just been announced. He is Dr. Bob Whelan, formerly of PA Technology. The steering committee is composed of people with strong interests in industry and is chaired by Sir Robin Nicholson. I am especially glad that that centre is situated in Manchester, because it can draw upon the

considerable strength and technological excellence that is found in the Manchester conurbation, not only at the University of Manchester, the University of Manchester institute of science and technology, Manchester polytechnic and Salford university, but in other parts of the north-west.

Mr. Straw: The Secretary of State is right in saying that few would disagree about the importance of collaborative research. It is something that should be welcomed. Is he suggesting that, in some way, additional spending on collaborative research should be offset by reductions in expenditure on what we have described as "curiosity-initiated research" through the dual support system? There is grave anxiety among the universities that the Government are putting too much emphasis on collaborative, attractive research, and not providing the environment in which curiosity-initiated research can flourish.

Mr. Baker: I do not agree. It is extremely important to back research projects for which one can see no particular end—curiosity-orientated research. The hon. Gentleman quoted some examples, and there is a great deal of such research taking place in British universities. It is funded principally through UGC grants.
The research councils have some contracts for such work, and industry occasionally funds such work. I assure the hon. Gentleman that we do not want to throw all the emphasis on the application end of research. That would be a narrow view, but we wish to make sure that some of the great inventiveness of British universities—there is still such inventiveness in many of our universities, as well as great talent and creativity—comes out to the market place. If that happens, it adds to the prosperity of the British economy and British companies.
Over the centuries we have been rather good at that. Indeed, it was a Scot who invented the first television and demonstrated it in a room in Soho, which I believe is now an Italian restaurant. However, it is palpably true that other countries have developed the television industry much more effectively than we have. There are many examples of that sort, and we must ensure that more of our inventiveness comes on to the market.
I praise the research councils for their work. British science has a worldwide reputation for excellence and has achieved large numbers of major scientific successes, some of which the hon. Member for Blackburn mentioned. They include penicillin, monoclonal antibodies, which have important implications for medical research, synthetic pyrethroid insecticides, which are non-toxic to mammals, and the development of new types of radio telescopes. Since 1970, 15 United Kingdom scientists have received Nobel prizes, while the United Kingdom share of world science citations and publications exceeds that of France and Germany. The research councils also produce practical benefits for United Kingdom industry. For example, the Medical Research Council obtained 37 patents in 1986–87. The Agricultural and Food Research Council received six Queen's awards for industry between 1976 and 1984. I am sure that all hon. Members will welcome such achievements.
As the House will know, following the excellent report of the House of Lords Select Committee on Science and Technology, we announced the strengthening of the Government's central machinery for considering science.


The first component is collective consideration under the Prime Minister's leadership of science and technology priorities across all Government Departments — some-thing that has hitherto been lacking. This is linked with the annual public expenditure survey and will influence the expenditure plans that my colleagues and I will announce in the autumn for 1989–90 and for later years.

Mr. Dick Douglas: rose—

Mr. Baker: If the hon. Gentleman will allow me, I shall get on.
Secondly, we have established the Advisory Council on Science and Technology — ACOST—with terms of reference that embrace all science and technology and with a membership drawn broadly from industry and the universities. This body is expected to provide the Government with influential advice on priorities for science.
Those developments have been welcomed and should contribute considerably to the value of the scientific debate in the coming years. I must stress, however, that, contrary to the belief of some commentators, the new arrangements do not imply a diminished role for the ABRC. I should like to take this opportunity to pay tribute to the advisory board and particularly to its chairman, Sir David Phillips.
Let me deal with selectivity and concentration. As I said, it is very important that we should move towards more selective discrimination in deciding which aspects of science to fund. This is a difficult decision for any politician. Some progress has been made. The research councils have made good progress. For example, the SERC has doubled its spending on engineering research over the past decade—as a specific aspect of determined policy—largely at the expense of astronomy and nuclear physics. However, Britain has kept a world-class presence in both disciplines because research has been focused on institutes of established excellence.
Similarly, the priority that the MRC has given to molecular biology in particular centres has paid handsome dividends. The hon. Member for Blackburn mentioned AIDS research. In money terms our AIDS research programme seems modest, but it is beginning to work very well and the scientists are optimistic, although any sort of cure or vaccine is many years off. We could not have mounted that programme without our outstanding virology and molecular biology departments, which, as the hon. Member for Blackburn said, are Government funded.
The swiftness of the response impressed me enormously. When the proposals from the MRC first reached the Committee under the chairmanship of my noble Friend Lord Whitelaw, I thought that the process would take a long time to get under way. I am impressed by the speed with which we have responded, and I hope that our scientists will be able to contribute to doing something about this appalling disease.
The UGC has grasped the nettle of selectivity in its famous list, produced last year, grading the research activities of various departments. Since then, grants to universities have explicitly reflected judgments about the quality of their research.
One of the main proposals in the ABRC's strategy advice—the hon. Member for Blackburn said that I had never listened to Sir David Phillips; I talk to him often and value his counsel and in this matter I have accepted his advice lock, stock and barrel—was for the establishment

of university research centres focusing on new developments of potential interest to industry. That is very important. The university research centres will concentrate research effort. They will ensure more inter-disciplinary working, for example, of chemists with physicists, and biologists with engineers. They will forge strong links between higher education research and industry, and they will provide better co-ordination.
The SERC has already announced the establishment of the first four centres. These will be for research on higher temperature super-conductors at Cambridge, research on engineering design by a consortium based at Glasgow university, research in surface sciences based at Liverpool, and research on molecular sciences at Oxford. Each involves an investment by the SERC of between £6 million and £10 million, and each will also be backed by significant UGC and industrial funds. They are intended as powerhouses in their fields and are being funded as such. Some of the funding has been provided by redeployment from other parts of the SERC's budget, but more than half is new money, drawn from the additional resources that I announced last November.
I look forward to the establishment of other research centres. They are an important way of bringing together expertise in the established disciplines without constructing pillared buildings to house the project. It is difficult to bring together the different disciplines, but it is well worthwhile.
The hon. Member for Blackburn asked about the strength of science in general terms. Tomorrow the report of an international study on science achievement in 17 countries will appear. It measures how well our children do in science. The report holds no comfort for us at all. It shows that although we do very well at the top end of the system, at 17-plus — this is because we are highly selective at that stage—the scientific performance of our pupils at 11-plus and 14-plus lags behind that of our competitors. The main reason for that is that many of our schools have low scores. This creates a long tail of low achievement which drastically lowers our average scores in science. We cannot be satisfied with that. The report shows the wide variation in our schools, but it is a clear signal for us to pull up our scientific socks in schools.
In 1978 the inspectors issued a report on primary science which found that science was the least developed subject in the primary curriculum, We have done much since then, and if one wanted to single out a discipline in the primary curriculum that is doing well one might now single out primary science. We published our policy statement, "Science 5 to 16" in 1985 and set out the important objectives, that all pupils should be introduced to science in primary school, and that all class teachers should include some science in their teaching. Since 1985 we have followed up the policy statement by supporting expenditure of more than £16 million on the development of primary science and technology through education support grants, and we expect to support expenditure of a further £9 million next year.
We have a long way still to go and I do not wish to appear complacent. Hon. Members who have visited primary classes in their constituencies will know that in the better schools interesting work is being done by six, seven and eight-year-olds.

Mr. Patrick Thompson: Is my right hon. Friend addressing this point to the teachers' training colleges, which I am sure is one way to improve matters?

Mr. Baker: My hon. Friend, who brings to education matters considerable personal experience, is absolutely right. We shall not get science right in our universities and research councils unless we start in the schools. We must be concerned about the beginning of the flow through.
Our success depends also on the availability of science teachers, which is a matter of some concern. We published a consultative document on the matter in 1986 and started to implement a comprehensive action plan. Within two years we secured a 100 per cent. increase in the recruitment of trainee physics teachers. Many are joining the profession from other careers, attracted to teaching by the challenges and rewards that it offers. In 1987 we came within 1·3 per cent. of recruiting up to our target number of physics places in teacher training institutions and had, as part of our shortages action plan, increased the number of such places by nearly 6 per cent.
We are giving local education authorities £3·85 million in grants this year, and £4·4 million next year, to retrain and upgrade teachers of science who do not have adequate qualifications. There is no shortage of biology teachers, nor, as yet, of chemistry teachers. However, we are watching carefully a shortfall in recruitment to chemistry courses. Secondary pupil numbers will continue to fall until 1991.

Mr. Douglas: The Secretary of State is referring to England and Wales.

Mr. Baker: I am responsible for the English education system. I have a high regard for Scottish education. It does very well. However, I am talking specifically about teacher training in England and Wales.
I do not want the House to feel any sense of complacency in this matter. There is a great deal to be done. However, we do not want to sell British science short. We should be proud of what our scientists do. They work well in our universities, research councils and, in growing numbers, in our polytechnics. As I have said already, the quality of Britain's academic research is recognised across the world. The country is rightly proud of the outstanding record of its scientists. They have won honours out of all proportion to Britain's size and wealth. Britain has a reputation and strength in science which we must do everything possible to maintain and enhance. The quality of scientific research in our universities and research councils constitutes a major national asset. I welcome this opportunity to applaud the work of the men and women whose talent and dedication keep us at the frontiers of knowledge.

Mr. Jim Cousins: The speech of the Secretary of State comes at the end of three years of almost continuous protest from industry and the academic world about the Government's policies towards science. The right hon. Gentleman's speech showed some evidence of a small but late rethink. However, the Advisory Board for the Research Councils has taken that into account and its advice note published in December said that the Government's revised expenditure plans for the science budget, those on which the Secretary of State has taken his stand tonight, do not provide

the means to move our nation's scientific capability towards the 21st century. We remain precariously poised at the divide and are beginning to slip in the wrong direction. A great opportunity has been missed.
The five research centres under the Link programme, to which the Secretary of State referred, the long overdue and still awaited search for a direction for the science base and the one and only collaborative research centre—at Manchester—between the academic world and industry serve only to emphasise the fact that the necessary structural and individual career links between basic, strategic and applied science do not exist and that the links between the science world of the university and the science world of industry are perilously weak.
The changes announced by the Secretary of State are small and have, as he admitted, been financed by cuts elsewhere in the science budget. It is worth bearing in mind that in the next financial year, the first in which the measures will have any effect, the total sums of money involved amount to scarcely more than that provided for two research ships—one replacement and one new—in Antarctica, which were also provided for in the increase in the expenditure programme.
Import penetration in our high technology industries is rising steadily and has risen throughout the life of the present Government. There is a £2 billion trade deficit from 1987 in a narrow group of important high technology industries concerned with electronics. The technology requirements board, set up by the Department of Trade and Industry, published its first report in the middle of last year. Its first statement was on the lack of industrial civil research and development. The Government's contribution to industrial civil research and development has fallen steadily throughout their life and the measures announced tonight by the Secretary of State go only a small way towards correcting that long-term decline. Two thirds of our industrial civil research and development is confined to a narrow range of industries. In fact, overseas funding of industrial research and development is now almost as great as the Government's contribution towards the science budget.
Even in regions such as mine, where we have one or two high technology industries, the links between multinational companies and the academic world are often tenuous. Many of the industrial plants are branch plants where research and development does not take place. Our research and development facilities are often unconnected to the products produced in the plants in the region. The friction costs of creating and sustaining a proper basis of skills for science in the future are high, given that pattern of industrial disconnection, for which the Government are not providing a proper element of leadership. They have not provided proper leadership throughout their time in office. The Secretary of State has said that companies will be in a position to finance their research and development from their own resources. That is a policy of laissez-faire which will simply add to the problems that are accumulating in British science.
The Government's tax take from industry is rising constantly and has risen steadily over the past three years. We are the only industrial country in which the tax take from industry has risen during that period. Every other major industrial country has been attempting to reduce the tax take from industry in the context of a planned advance of research and development. This Government are unique in not supporting those policies.
The Secretary of State does not pay sufficient attention to the regional effects of some of the Government's industrial policies. In order to create the links between basic, strategic and applied research and the world of production it is necessary to create sustained networks of interconnection between the academic world and industry. Too many of the industrial closures and mergers in the regions of Britain have broken the reality of those connections. My region has seen the virtual disappearance of Plessey as a major employer and the recent amalgamation of a major industrial ceramics producer, Thermal Syndicate, with a French company, which is clearly stripping its research and development capability. The Secretary of State has ignored that important aspect of the connection between science policy and industrial policy. The measures he has advanced for science policy leave the connections between science and industry to the work of the market. In his own comments on industry's performance in civil research and development he has made statements which suggest that we do not have an adequate policy.
In the academic world we are still seeing measures by which Peter is being robbed to pay Paul. Universities are responding to the need for industrial sponsorship for their research programmes. However, many of the employment places created are of a short-term contract nature which cannot provide the career structure on which science needs to develop. The Government's policies towards universities mean that they must increasingly seek to place a considerable burden of their overheads on to the research funds that they are attempting to generate from industry. A collision between the universities' need for sponsorship and their need to provide for their own basic overheads will produce a crisis of sponsorship funding in the near future.
The policies of the Health Service are also serving to undermine research in universities. Newcastle university has cut 38 posts in the medical faculty, many of them research posts. The National Health Service in the city cannot possibly take up the slack of funding that that represents.
The Secretary of State should have sent out the message that he was committed to building proper, continuing links of research and science between the academic world and the world of industry. That clarion call has not come. In my region, there are a number of locally based initiatives which the Secretary of State could have used as a model and which, significantly, are often funded by the local branch of the Department of Trade and Industry. It is a worrying aspect of the Government's policies towards science that the spending programmes of the Departments which have a share in research spending are not well coordinated, so that the best use is not being made of the money available.
Finally, I hope that there will be measures in the Budget through which the Government will seriously seek to link their belated efforts in funding for a science policy with a genuine restructuring and reconstruction of the base of civil research and development in industry through tax and other measures. Shortly, we are to have the promise of a new Companies Act. I hope that the Government will take advantage of that Act to respond to many of the requests from industry, to ask companies to identify their research and development spending and to provide for the links

that they ought to be making in terms of the skill and science base of their own activities. We must await those conclusions.
It is clear that the Secretary of State has stuck narrowly to his departmental brief. We need a new approach in which the problems of science policy will be combined with a consideration of industrial policy and industrial planning. From the limited measures announced tonight, it is all too clear that that is not what we shall have.

Mr. Alick Buchanan-Smith: I welcome the subject of the debate which the Opposition have chosen because it is vital to the future of the country, the economy and our reputation around the world. I was impressed by many of the statistics that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State gave earlier, but I hope that he will remember that it is not just a matter of statistics and money.
The hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, Central (Mr. Cousins) underlined the fact that our role in universities and research institutes is based upon human beings. Our biggest resource in science and research is the human resource. That resource requires to be motivated if we are to continue to produce the results and to maintain the reputation that we have in the past. From my contacts in universities and institutions, it is obvious that there is a sense of disillusionment and bewilderment and a need for direction. In that sense, the debate is particularly topical this evening.
I understand the general thrust of policy. For example, the Government amendment referred to better value for money and better responsiveness. I understand the need for better co-ordination with industry. I have just spent four years at the Department of Energy where I endeavoured to mobilise the oil industry to put more into research and, at the same time, to obtain the co-operation of research establishments, universities and institutes. I was consulted when the Link programme was drawn up because, in many cases, the Offshore Energy Technology Board was already fulfilling many of the objectives of the Link programme.
I support the suggestion of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for better co-ordination and links between research, science and industry. However, I have a number of major concerns to which I hope the Government will pay attention and on which they will take action.
First, despite the comments of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State— I believe that he does not want to be complacent — there is a danger of complacency because we are becoming almost over-obsessed with the need for this greater link between industry, science and research. Development and technology are important in themselves, but we must remember that research is equally important, particularly fundamental research. This country has long had a reputation for fundamental research. The funding of that research is a public responsibility. It is the kind of research which only in a limited way can we be sure of getting simply through links between industry and research institutions and universities. We must remember that fundamental research has always been, and is likely to remain to a great extent, a public responsibility.
Secondly, there is an urgent need for better understanding of the background against which our


policies are applied. The Government amendment refers to the progress made by the University Grants Committee. I make no apology for referring to that and to universities. In the light of the discussions that I have had with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State recently, I am sure that he will not be surprised at that. My right hon. Friend fairly said that he is at arm's length from the UGC. But the UGC puts into effect the Government's policies. It is a Government agency and, although it carries out those policies at arm's length, the general policy in relation to universities and research is the ultimate responsibility of the Government.
Some of those policies do not fully take account of the traditions and histories of some of those institutions. Again, I make no apology for referring to my university, Aberdeen, which is an ancient university. In Scotland, we had four universities at a time when England had only two. That fact and the fact that we have a higher proportion of ancient universities means that, within our universities, there is a far wider range of disciplines than in many modern universities. At the same time, particularly in the case of Aberdeen, it has traditionally been the academic centre for a far wider geographic area of population than many of our modern institutions.
Because Aberdeen is a university with a wide range of disciplines, departments and also an important medical school with a good scientific record, it tends to be a relatively higher cost university. Even though the medical school at Aberdeen is well recognised under the new kind of UGC rating system, within such a small university, the effect of this high-cost department has gone unrecognised. Aberdeen has probably been the worst hit in that respect. Because the background of this university has not been taken properly into account by the UGC or by Government policy, it has been fairly hard hit and there have been bad consequences for this university. Failure to apply appropriate policies will simply lead to political alienation. We hope to avoid that.
Thirdly, the Government must be much more aware of the consequences of the policies which they are pursuing. Between 1980 and 1986 Aberdeen university suffered a 24·4 per cent. funding cut. I do not say that all was well in the university. There was room for improvement in particular departments but, because of the objectives of the UGC's plan, it now has had to shed 245 academic and non-academic posts. The Government have said, properly, that transitional and additional funds will be available—£155 million over three years for purposes that include transition where that is difficult—but the UGC has not made a commitment as to how it will achieve those objectives. One cannot run a business in that way, far less an academic or research institute. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State should not be surprised at the growing disillusionment. There is compliance with difficult policies and remedies are being applied, but the means must be given—whether by the Government or through the UGC—to ensure that objectives are achieved in an orderly and sensible way. If that is not done, there will be disillusionment among all the human resources to which I have referred,
Fourthly, there must be more consistency in Government policies. I make no apology for speaking from first-hand experience. The universities have been told to get money from industry for research, to relate their

activities to industry and to train their graduates better for posts in industry. I have already acknowledged how right that is.
The geology department at the university of Aberdeen is to be decimated, in accordance with the advice of the Oxburgh committee looking into earth sciences, yet it has one of the best records for placing graduates, especially in petroleum geology, in industry. The department is on the doorstep of North sea oil. Where could one find a better place to expand? It is the only department in Scotland that teaches petroleum geology at BSc and MSc level.
Scotland does not have polytechnics but petroleum geology, for example, is taught in polytechnics in England. If the Committee's proposals were followed through, the number of geology departments in Scotland would fall from six to three, whereas in the rest of the United Kingdom there would be 57 departments, including 21 polytechnics, to which students could turn for training.
There is no logic in these kinds of recommendations. This shows the inconsistent approach. I use the opportunity of this debate on an important aspect of science to demonstrate in practical terms what is happening. Fortunately, the news today is rather better. Apparently there have been second thoughts and there may be modifications in the proposals. I hope that there are modifications, but they will be judged when we see and hear them and I have not yet had an opportunity to do so. Even if the proposals are modified, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State should not be surprised that there is disillusionment among people involved in research and among those who teach science in universities when proposals demonstrating such inconsistency come forward.
I support much of what is being done in our science and university policies, but there is also much that is not well. I have pointed to four aspects where things are not going well. I hope that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State will pay attention to those points, otherwise many of us will find it difficult to support these policies.

Mr. Matthew Taylor: I welcome the speech of the right hon. Member for Kincardine and Deeside (Mr. Buchanan-Smith), who echoed the worries of many hon. Members. They many not be expressed by some hon. Members, but they do exist. Those worries have led to the motion. I welcome the fact that the Opposition have devoted time to this subject, especially as I made my second speech, after coming here as a Member almost exactly a year ago, on this subject and research council funding.
We cannot ignore the fact that internationally—not just in this country—there is a shortage of scientists and technicians. If we are not able to offer the rewards, guarantees, excellence and facilities that other countries can offer, the prizes that go with individuals will be given not to this country but to others.
Unarguably, Britain has spent less on civil research and development than France and Germany. It is even more important to consider our priorities. Some 50 per cent. of research spending in Britain is on defence, compared with one third in France, less than 10 per cent. in West Germany and just 2·5 per cent. in Japan. That difference in emphasis is far more telling than a juggling of figures, comparing expenditure under various Governments. The record not only of this Government but of successive


Governments has fallen short. More than half of Britain's £4·5 billion science budget goes on defence, compared with a NATO average of one quarter. A great deal of our military expenditure is not on research but on the development of military items. According to reports from the Advisory Board for the Research Councils, the science budget of the University Grants Committee has been cut by 11 per cent. since 1981. That difference in emphasis is the key to many of our problems.
The ABRC document "A Strategy for the Science Base" echoes the criticism of the Government's spending over many years. The report says:
Unavoidable increases in costs — under-indexation in respect of pay and international subscriptions, rising superannuation outlays and essential restructuring —constitute a major offset against the apparent real increase in the Science Budget in recent years. Together with the rising real cost of scientific equipment, these factors have almost certainly led to a reduction in the amount of scientific activity which the Councils have been able to fund. The Government's present expenditure plans offer no prospect of an end to this continuing contraction.
The report continues:
Government expenditure on the science base has been significantly less in the UK as a proportion of GDP than in several European countries, and in contrast with other countries has been falling. The brain drain from the UK is symptomatic of the failure of our investment to keep up with that of our competitors.
The report goes on:
The Government has a responsibility to create confidence in its plans for enhancing the strength and quality of the science base, in partnership with industry and the research community …Further consideration should be given to the introduction of a link between part or all of the Science Budget and growth of GDP.
It is clear that the Government have continued to fail on each score. Despite the welcome news in November, they have not tackled the essential difficulties that are highlighted in the report. We await the Government's full response, which I hope we can debate in the House.
The Government's response to these problems has been to increase the emphasis on private research. Although our companies have increased spending on research and development by one fifth over the past decade, the Secretary of State has been right to highlight his worries. In America, France and Germany expenditure has doubled and in Japan it has trebled. It is not enough for the Secretary of State to say that he has worries and that he agrees with the Opposition that there are problems. He must go one step further and tackle them. In particular, he must tackle the difference in spending by our European partners on research in industry and technology compared with Britain. That point has been emphasised already by Members on both sides of the House. According to The Guardian today, Britain's universities are less dependent on Government grants than at any time in the past 20 years. Block grants accounted for only 55 per cent. of university income last year compared with 70 per cent. in 1974. It is a pity that it is not simply because private money has been flooding in; unfortunately, it is because Government money too often has been flooding out. It also adds to the real worries of which we have heard already about the emphases and the area on which the money is going and the kind of research that is taking place.
Professor Robin Weiss, director of the Institute of Cancer Research, said:

we were able to respond to the AIDS challenge only because of the excellent groundwork laid in the UK. But the erosion of our science base is so bad that the next virus along will beat us.
Mary Warnock states in her article in New Society:
The universities do not exist solely to train managers or employees. They are not in business merely to provide statistical … backing for Government policies.
There is a general concern, both in regard to broader university education and, particularly, to the Universities Funding Council. It will be chaired by an industrialist and the academics who become members are unlikely to he a majority. To put it again, not in my words but in those of Mary Warnock,
there is, therefore, real danger that the long-term academic duties of universities may come to seem less important than the delivery of short-term and wealth-producing results.
We have had a whole variety of examples of where research which is not directed to any particular goal, not directed, in particular, to industrial goals, has paid off. To take an example that has not yet been mentioned, in the early years of the century Einstein was studying the movement of the planets, which resulted within 40 years, through the development of relativistic equivalence of mass and energy, in nuclear power, a jump that no one could have predicted at the turn of the century. Who knows what kind of jumps may yet be to come?
That is the sort of thing that has led to the criticisms of the Government in their cutting-off of funding for space research and leaving it all to industry, which will look to short-term ends. It is the kind of criticism that we have about the devotion of Government research and development funds in energy policy almost exclusively to nuclear research, with very little left to other areas that are discounted as less likely to show a return.
The result of all that has been a migration of scientists from this country—probably the most worrying statistic of them all. Incomes Data Services recently reported figures from American and British institutes of physics which reveal that technologists with 10 to 14 years' experience can expect to earn the equivalent of £36,000 in America in comparison with a little over £13.000 in Britain. Figures from the United States immigration services, analysed by the United States National Science Foundation, show that the United Kingdom contributed 9,500 foreign-born scientists who took up permanent residence in the United States in 1984.
The science and engineering policy studies unit of the Royal Society demonstrated that the number of its British fellows living abroad had risen from 4 per cent. in 1960 to 13 per cent. in 1984. According to that report, fewer new doctors of philosophy who emigrate return than did 25 years ago, yet it is on them that our scientific future depends.
At the moment we train good scientists and then we export them. Unfortunately, we do not get the foreign scientists who train here to stay. The Government should ask themselves why that is so. Only 20 per cent. of foreign scientists and engineers work in Britain for longer than three years. Four times as many British scientists and engineers who left Britain took up long-term jobs abroad.
It is only by tackling this kind of problem that we will find a solution to the crisis that we see in British science. It is no wonder that such emigration exists, particularly among the youngest talent, because, predominantly, younger people are put on short-term contracts, with a hit-and-miss system of going on to further work. It may well


appear to many of them that by the time they have won one contract and ensured that that is going ahead, they barely have a moment's pause before going on to make sure that they have another contract to follow that.
Paul Hare and Geoffrey Wyatt, in an article shortly to be published in Research Policy, say:
The application of financial pressure, in the absence of powers to hire and fire, is simply counterproductive, as many universities discovered to their cost after the 1981 cuts in British university funding: often the best people turned out to be the most mobile and promptly left the system.
In the report published by the Royal Society, the reasons given for the exodus of top university talent were mainly better opportunity—20 per cent. —facilities—13 per cent. and financial rewards—14 per cent. Those are matters that the Government can be more positive about immediately. They need to address those issues if the problems are not to continue.
Just a few positive notes before I finish. I pick on one because it is of particular interest to parts of the country such as my own. The Government have taken some welcome initiatives in getting new research establishments going, bringing together research talent and setting off new ideas in new directions, but one characteristic of these initiatives is that they have gone where such talent already exists, where there is already a resource base of these individuals, where people can already go if they want to get benefits in the United Kingdom.
The Government have ignored the potential in spending such sums and bringing forward such developments for getting things going in areas that do not offer such resources and infrastructure to the local community—areas such as Cornwall where we lose far too high a proportion of our brightest youngsters. There is nothing in Cornwall or anywhere near it that they can go to. Exeter, for example, is two hours' drive from my constituency, and not an easy drive at that.
That is the kind of problem that we face. It would be good if the Government would use the opportunity to take resources to the areas that can best utilise and benefit from them. We could create science parks around St. Austell and Camborne, based on the skills that already exist in mining and clay and the rest, and bring in new talent and resources which will allow such development to grow. There is no better way of bringing in new technology or taking advantage of the facilities that new technology creates — the opportunities created by there no longer being a need to have individuals based where other research and development is going on. Computer information technology has got rid of that need and we should seize with some imagination the opportunities that it provides.
In addition, there is a desperate need for an immediate restoration of morale. The only way to do that will be to provide long-term commitments and the ability to plan ahead for at least five years with a rolling programme of commissioning, development and funding. We must expand education to reach the level of France, the United States, Germany and Japan. According to the Save British Science group, we need an expansion of at least 50 per cent. by the end of the century. We must tackle the problem of the shortage of qualified physics, mathematics and science teachers in our schools—something which the Minister has talked about but which he has so far railed to deal with. We must find quality research and stimulate

industrial research and development, perhaps in the way that I have suggested. But, above all, the Government need to raise their eyes to the next century, to the horizon and not keep looking at and stumbling over their own feet, and over the faults that admittedly exist in the system — faults which will be tackled only by a more far-sighted approach to the questions that British science raises.

Sir Ian Lloyd: I am sure that the hon. Member for Truro (Mr. Taylor) will forgive me if I do not follow his interesting speech too closely, but time is short.
As some of my right hon. Friends are aware, I have been pressing for this debate for some time. Therefore, I am obliged to the Opposition for securing it by using one of their Supply days, although I regret that the debate is only for half a day. It is symptomatic of the attention paid to science that we should have waited until 29 February for the debate. I wish only that it was a leap year for British science. However, we now have the time and whatever our views the debate is long overdue. If the Government wish us to accept, as some of us would wish to, that they pay more than lip service to the importance of science and Government decisions relating to science, we should have an annual occasion on which these matters can be discussed. It should not depend on the Opposition giving up one of their Supply days or on an Adjournment debate at 3 am. This is a prime subject of great national importance and it deserves prime time.
The Government's policy and performance in this sphere is something of a curate's egg. There have been some excellent initiatives; some of them have been obscured by what might be described as the dance of the acronyms. Science policy has shifted from ACCORD, ACARD and others to ACOST, ABRC, STAO and CEST. It is not easy to keep up with the changes of policy that are associated with the changes of the acronym, and that is to say nothing of the changes in the EEC acronyms such as ESPRIT, BRITE, JET, FRAMEWORK and others.
Nevertheless, there have been some excellent developments. I do not share the range of criticisms that have been levelled by the Opposition. The Link scheme has much to commend it. The CEST proposal will achieve important results, if only because Sir Francis Tombs is at the helm and it has adequate resources. Many of the initiatives described by the chief scientific adviser to the Cabinet office, Mr. John Fairclough, in his Midland bank lecture at Brunel, are important, significant and deserve support. Very few of the matters involved have been discussed here. I refer to the multidisciplinary research centres, on which the Secretary of State laid much welcome emphasis, the teaching company schemes and the development of science parks by English Estates, which has been a most successful venture.
I share many but not all of Mr. Fairclough's conclusions and judgments. In particular, I am skeptical —this scepticism has already surfaced in the debate— about his conclusion that the
effective exploitation of science should always be our goal.
It is a major goal, but something vital in the brilliance and uniqueness of British science may be lost or prejudiced if we allow too great an intrusion of market judgments. It is the market which must assess science, not science which must assess the market.
Much of the debate is bound to concentrate on the question of resources for science. Much of the disagreement on the matter is sterile, particularly if it rests on different interpretations of GDP percentages, defence research and development percentages and arcane mysteries such as the transatlantic flow of PhDs, fellows of the Royal Society and Nobel prize winners.
I attach little significance to publication tallies in learned journals. One paper by Crick and Watson, Rutherford, Chadwick or Fleming is worth 1,000 that vanish without trace after publication. Quality in science is all important and it is quality that we must sustain, encourage and support.
There are some sets of figures, however, that cause me, and no doubt others, great concern. The first is that the United States, which spends half the world's research and development budget, is immensely concerned about its scientific performance and its consequent loss of industrial leadership, particularly with regard to Japan. The scale is most significant. The United States spent $125 billion on research in 1987, $60 billion of which came from federal resources, and of that $11 billion was spent on basic research. Since 1980, as a percentage of GDP, that expenditure has increased from 2·3 to 2·8 per cent. In non-defence spending it has increased from 1·8 to 1·9 per cent. Between 1987 and 1994 its basic research expenditure will approach 16 per cent. of the total federal budget. Despite those trends, the United States, which is still possibly the worlds' most significant research and development base and leader in the higher technology sector, now imports 75 per cent. of its requirements for integrated circuits from Japan. In the most critical sub-sector, which is known as DRAMS, its share of world production is down to 5 per cent.
Europe, despite substantial if not comparable research and development, is in a similar if not worse plight in this sector. We are almost out of it altogether. The report, "Silicon 200", said:
Mainstream memories … it argued … represent the very highest volume products typified by DRAMS … It is an area requiring the highest investment and a long term strategy. It is an area in which politics and economic considerations existing in the U.K. preclude U.K. Company involvement. The U.K. has withdrawn any pretence of involvement.
The report calls for an investment of £255 million and warns that it will be largely wasted if
it is not complemented by a substantial commitment to build a more credible and viable semi-conductor industry within the United Kingdom".
I would argue that the context should not be the United Kingdom but Europe, the finance should be European and the market worldwide if we are to succeed. The main conclusion is that, despite repeated warnings and millions of pounds spent in support of limited and ineffective policies, the United Kingdom and Europe have lost out to Japan.
Money alone, even on the United States and European scale, is not the answer. So what is the answer? Perhaps one answer is that Japanese integrated circuit companies are investing 35 per cent., not of their profits but of their revenue in research and have done so since 1979. Their revenues are vast.
This is not a debate about space, but the scale, vision and determination of the Japanese space programme leap out of reports and suggest a most intriguing relationship between priorities and results. If I may detain the House

for a moment, the latest Japanese project is to construct the largest international joint space centre in the world. They propose to form an international science and technology community for space and to create a parent body to provide international co-operation in space and to develop its utilisation. This is taking place at two places in Japan — at Tashei and Oybayashi. It is also developing the H2 rocket, which will have a launch capability of two tonnes. That really puts Japan ahead in space.
Therefore, I accept and I ask the House to accept Professor Dennis Noble's conclusion in his Lloyd-Roberts lecture, where he summarises the reality when he argues that:
It is a gross oversimplification to suppose that the relation between science and wealth-creation is direct. It requires the integrity of many essential links, the blue skies research itself, the consolidation of fundamental discoveries into exploitable fields, the inventiveness to see how they might be exploited, the entrepreneurship required to risk capital development and the determination to market the product … fail at any of those stages and you will have failed to convert science into wealth creation".
He made out a most powerful case when he argued in conclusion that
the political argument about the future of science in the United Kingdom is not a funny aberration that will simply go away … once we have solved the next round of funding crises. We have a long trek ahead … if we are to avoid a major cultural and economic catastrophy for our nation.
I share that judgment. The nature of the catastrophe has never been better summarised than by Correlli Barnett's powerful book on Britain, "The Audit of War". It is precisely because we have done and are doing so well in other directions that this area of concern has been kept out of sight or swept under the carpet. We are indebted not to the House but to another place, as my right hon. Friend conceded, for bringing it back into the limelight where it deserves to remain.
However much the Government may wish to disagree with some of the report's most powerful conclusions, they cannot disagree with the evidence, and the evidence discloses the mounting dismay and concern of some of the most informed and responsible people in science in Britain. The most recent report of the ABRC itself has already been quoted; I shall not quote it further. It is in the context of those and many other comments that I have found some of the comments of my right hon. and hon. Friends disturbing.
Lord Joseph is on record as saying:
It is not the role of Government to have a policy for science".
My noble Friend is no longer responsible for science, but I fear that in certain areas that philosophy remains, and in this day and age it is utterly indefensible. The ABRC concluded that the Government's revised expenditure plans
do not provide the means to move our nation's scientific capability towards the 21st century,
to which my right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor of the Duchy replied with the pious hope that
it will be possible to give greater priority to science in this year's public expenditure survey discussions.
I have looked at the public expenditure survey volumes with some care. Science creeps in here and there. Coverage is diffuse and scattered. Research and development is treated at length on only 12 out of about 515 pages. Some major Departments do not mention it at all. Astonishingly, the Ministry of Defence, which spends just


under half of the annual total, gives research one line. The review volume includes an analysis of just over one page —that is it; one page. From all that, it is just possible to discover that there is a science policy in the United Kingdom. In responsible Departments, the policy is obscure, benign and peripheral. In Departments that have no responsibility—if I may put it bluntly—science sinks without a trace and there is an almost audible sigh of relief.
Nevertheless, it is possible to discern some threads in the Government's science policy that have to be put together rather like a jigsaw. The words that appear most frequently these days are those such as "targeting", "direction", "selectivity", and "orchestration". The philosophy is based on the premise that, as we can hope to do only 5 per cent. of the world's research and development, central direction is necessary and unavoidable. "We cannot do everything" is the refrain. My right hon. Friend repeated it tonight. It is a plausible argument, but it begs many questions. The most important question is, "Who are 'we'?"
The need for choice is understandable, but can or should the Government attempt to make it? Does the need to improve our application of science sustain the cohesion of the argument right through to the choice of strategic direction in basic science, which is what we do best, and which will always be the most crucial? I think not.
What, then, can and should the Government do? They must clearly provide vital resources in major aspects of fundamental research. Industry cannot and will not do so. The Government must ensure that the education system rewards brilliance, especially eccentric brilliance in science. If that means differential rewards for scarce scientific skills, so be it. They must also provide moral support for that long overdue change in our national culture. Congressman Don Fuqua reported to the United States Congress on the subject. He summed up the situation in one sentence. He said:
Scientific illiteracy is a threat to the representative democratic system and ultimately to science itself.
Government can and should do more to reinforce their own successes by ensuring that excellent systems such as the overseas technology information service are made more widely known and more generally used by industry. What they should not do is pursue the objective set out by Mr. Fairclough and others. Mr. Fairclough asked that scientists
be kept in touch with the market and commercial opportunities.
In my judgment, our most valuable and original scientists should be preoccupied not with the market but with their subjects. Scientists should complete their research and publish it. It is up to industry and commerce to keep in touch with scientific endeavour and to equip itself to interpret and apply the results. The philosophy has never been better expressed than it was by the great French scientist, Pasteur. He said:
No. A thousand times no. There does not exist a category of science to which one can give the name applied science. There … are sciences and the application of sciences, bound together as the fruit of the tree which bears it.
That statement is as true today as it was in the century when Pasteur uttered it.
Where is the missing link? Will historians of the future, researching for the "Audit of Peace", the natural successor to Correlli Barnett's book, looking into the Olduvai gorge

of British scientific history, search in vain for a strong and powerful lead from Parliament? Here is, or should be, the major instrument of national policy criticism and formulation, yet, with the conspicuous exception of the Lords' Select Committee, we have no instruments of and little opportunity for policy discussion and formulation. No time is found for the discussion of major policy documents on science. We are too busy legislating, often to repair or remedy the consequences of major policy deficiencies in science and technology 10, 20 or even 50 years ago. As has been said recently in relation to some aspects of United States science policy, we have confused "who should mind the future and who should mind the factory."
The key statistic is the 5 per cent. of world science that is done in Britain. That means that 95 per cent. is done elsewhere. What proportion of that is accessible? It could be 30 per cent. What proportion is in fact accessed by Government or industry or both? It could be 10 per cent. What proportion of that which is accessed is applicable? I believe that it could be half, which brings us down to 5 per cent. Finally, what proportion is applied? I suspect that that figure is about 1 per cent.
If the Government have a positive role, it is to stimulate an upward movement in those percentages. That is the way to ensure that if the rest of the world takes advantage—as it will — of British science, we take a reciprocal advantage of science abroad. Here is a lake of the purest water surrounded by a vast herd of animals whose sensory perception is so poor that they appear to have no wish even to drink. We shall determine our future industrial rank not by using the national science output but by using the output of science as a whole, wherever it is done—and done well. That is the lesson that the Japanese have taught the world, and we must learn it.
What can Parliament do? First, it can pay much more attention to the subject. Secondly, it can take steps to ensure that it is much better informed on such matters and on the scientific aspects of legislation. Thirdly, it can persuade the Government that an informed Parliament has a role to play and that it is worth substantial expenditure to ensure that Parliament is informed. That is the prime purpose of the Office of Technology Assessment in Washington, and of the Parliamentary Science and Technology Information Foundation that we have established at Westminster. But let us contrast the scale of the resources. The OTA has a budget of $15 million per annum, while our humble, but I hope successful, foundation has £50,000.
One of my right hon. Friends with whom the project was discussed once remarked that Parliament has always been an ignorant place and that he hoped it would remain so. That is the most desperately sad and cynical comment on democracy that I have heard in a decade. If the nation is to have an informed and relevant science policy, we need an informed and relevant Parliament. At present, we have neither.

Mr. Andrew Smith: I join the hon. Member for Havant (Sir I. Lloyd) in urging the House to find time to discuss this important subject annually. On this occasion, the Opposition have taken the initiative and introduced this debate.
There is considerable significance in the agreement among hon. Members on both sides of the House about


the crisis in British science, and a symptom of the severity of the crisis is that since I told some colleagues in Oxford that I wished to take part in the debate I have hardly been able to get off the telephone because of the number of anxious and angry scientists who wished to give me information to draw to the attention of the House. Had they been here to listen to the Secretary of State, notwithstanding the few new points that he made, and although they would have noted his words of caution against complacency, they would have found his contribution complacent and a classic case of too little, too late.
Is that any wonder when, by any fair standards of international comparison, British science is so chronically under-funded? The Sussex university science policy research unit has shown that Britain ranked bottom, or next to bottom, compared with the United States, France, West Germany, Japan and the Netherlands. Reports for the Advisory Board for the Research Councils by the Royal Society reveal that Britain shows the most marked decline in its share of scientific output of any major OECD country. What is worse, notwithstanding the small increase in funds that the Secretary of State says will be available in the next two years, the amount of scientific work that those who should know expect that that will fund will fall by 2 per cent. Meanwhile, the cream Of our scientists are going abroad, with 1,000 of our best scientists going to the United States alone. As the right hon. Member for Kincardine and Deeside (Mr. Buchanan-Smith) said, the consequence is grave disillusion and a devastating effect on key areas of basic research work.
Let me give a couple of examples. The total United Kingdom research budget for materials science is about £5 million. That is research into new materials with important implications for work in super-conductivity, new materials for construction and aviation, and so on. That £5 million is peanuts compared with the sums that other countries put into that area.
My informant on the matter recently visited the United States, where he found that one department at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology was spending more on materials science than the total United Kingdom budget. He went to Japan, where he found one project that was bigger than the total amount being spent in this country.
One of my informant's best-ever students has just completed his doctorate in material sciences. He failed to obtain any money for continuing his research, so he has now joined an accountancy firm in the City of London. That case and many others like it are a tragedy for this country.
Similarly, another colleague in Oxford reported that a specialist in the central nervous system, doing incredibly important work on multiple sclerosis and so on, recently tried 500 United Kingdom companies and funding agencies in an attempt to obtain the resources that he needed to undertake an important new research project. No help was forthcoming. That support is now coming from a United States drugs company. It will have the options on any results of the research.
The consequences for our universities and our students' future are catastrophic. The figures from Oxford university bear out other statistics that were given earlier in the debate. In 1985–86, compared with 1983–84, 10 per cent. fewer students went from Oxford university into industry. Over the same period, the proportion of students

going to commerce was up by 11 per cent. Despite, or perhaps because of, the 20 per cent. Government cut in funding, studentships in Oxford have been left unfilled —the first time in memory that that has happened.
Universities are having to advertise to our students to apply for post-doctoral places. The best are simply either going into the City or on to scientific work in the United States. I dare say that in reply the Minister will claim that the brain drain figures can be interpreted this way or that way, and that the numbers coming in or going out are roughly equal. As other hon. Members have said, quality is crucial. Those who are coming here are coming to do short-term post-doctoral work for specific projects, whereas those who are leaving are the best people — senior academics, members of the Royal Society, prize winners and students who will be the leading scientists of the future.
We must heed the words of Professor Sir George Porter, president of the Royal Society, who said:
You cannot have a successful manufacturing industry unless you have something good to sell. You cannot have a good product without continuing applied research and development.
You cannot maintain good applied research and development without a good domestic science base.
As well as recognising the importance of scientific research in its own right, we must, as my hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, Central (Mr. Cousins) said, recognise the connection between the strategy that needs to be followed in science and education and that which needs to be followed in industry.
In the limited time available I wish to say a few words about the importance of research assistance for small companies, which is now generally recognised to be a critically important factor in exploiting the valuable links between university and polytechnic research departments and the work of entrepreneurs.
A certain sleight of hand has been involved in the labelling of schemes. We cannot escape the conclusion that, if the energy that was put into relabelling and repackaging schemes had instead gone into obtaining additional funds for research, and if the DTI had taken the time that it took in making television commercials to expedite decisions, small high-tech companies and the innovation that they undertake would have been a great deal better off.
For example, the support for innovation scheme operated by the DTI, providing funding of 33 or 35 per cent., had some defects, arid the system was relatively indiscriminate. Nevertheless, it was a route by which small companies could secure funding for research and development. When that scheme was superseded by the Eureka and Link schemes, the experience of firms on the ground has been that no new money has been made available. Funds that had been available in any case are simply being recycled under a new name.
While the funding for the development phases of Eureka was heralded at 50 per cent., the fact that no new money was available meant that fewer projects or work were to be assisted. While Link is proclaimed to be assisting small companies, it does so only when they are in collaboration. At least two companies or a Government laboratory must be taking part. Those are silly conditions. If they are intended to establish the credibility of the project, they are a pretty sloppy substitute for the real work of evaluation that ought to be done.
More seriously — this is the real danger that small companies fear—if they have a brilliant idea that they are compelled to share at the so-called pre-competitive research stage, they risk losing the particular commercial benefit of the idea. They are put in an impossible dilemma. Either they must risk missing much-needed funds, or they must risk losing the financial benefits of the research to a larger competitor. Either way, operated in such a fashion, the scheme cannot but discriminate in the interests of larger firms, at the expense of small ones.
Even more frustrating and self-defeating than the packaging of the assistance schemes and the terms under which they operate are the delays in decision-making, which can paralyse a small company. I wrote to the DTI only today about a firm in my constituency. It is a small firm, with a spectacular record of innovation, development and manufacture in electro-optics. It is poised on the threshold of an exciting research project to develop key filtration units for the new generation of industrial lasers.
That work would keep Britain at the cutting edge of innovation in a vitally important sphere. The firm applied for assistance under the Eureka programme, and the final application went in on 25 September last year. While the DTI officials with whom it has dealt have been sympathetic, today the company is still waiting for a decision on whether the project can go ahead. That means that it has lost five months at a crucial stage.
But it is worse than that. Under the terms of the assistance, the company cannot spend any of its own money on the work without prejudicing the funds that may be forthcoming from the Government in the future. In the meantime, its financial and staff budgeting and its work schedule are thrown into uncertainty, which, were it not for the enterprise and flexibility of both management and work force, would be crippling. In contrast, the company's competitors in the United States, under the small business innovation research programme there, can take in an application in the morning and come out with a cheque in the afternoon.
Faced with such shortcomings in Government support, it is a tribute to the scientists and scientific entrepreneurs in this country that there are any subjects left in which we are world leaders. What is needed is clear: more funding, more straightforward and simple criteria so that firms can develop their own ideas, and, above all, quicker decision-making so that high-tech firms can compete on an equal basis with those abroad. There lies the way to success for innovation and for high-tech industry, and for a more prosperous future for the country as a whole.

Dr. Jeremy Bray: Of all of those who have spoken, the Secretary of State has shown least understanding of the intense frustration articulated by the Advisory Board for the Research Councils, which he appointed to advise him. That frustration is shared by the whole scientific community.
This is a time of unprecedented fertility and opportunity in basic science and its applications. My hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, Central (Mr. Cousins) spoke of the lack of strategy and leadership which the Government have brought to bear in response. The right hon. Member for Kincardine and Deeside (Mr. Buchanan-Smith) spoke about disillusionment in research

and teaching. The hon. Member for Truro (Mr. Taylor) spoke about frustration throughout the scientific community. The hon. Member for Havant (Sir I. Lloyd) spoke of the brilliance of individual scientists, which has been the glory of the scientific tradition, facing the catastrophe which he feels the Government are bringing about. My hon. Friend the Member for Oxford, East (Mr. Smith) spoke about the flood of representations that he has received in just the day or two in which it has been known that we were to have this debate.
The Government's expenditure plans have the science budget reaching what appears to be a plateau or perhaps continuing on a plain. We are spending only 15 per cent. more than in 1979. We are failing to keep up with the 2 per cent. per annum sophistication factor, or the 17 per cent. growth of national income. That means, for those who understand the definitions of national income, no increase in scientists and no increase in science bought. To be fair, that represents a consistent pattern, with the science budget having dropped from 0·2 per cent. to 0·16 per cent. of GDP in the early 1970s with the onset of disillusionment about science at that time. Spending has remained at that level ever since. What has changed is the pace of development in science and the pace of its application in the rest of the world.
After allowing for the welcome 7 per cent. increase in industrial research and development between 1985 and 1986, total research and development in the United Kingdom still fell from 2·39 per cent. to 2·36 per cent. of GDP last year because of Government cuts. After taking out defence research and development, the new OECD figures which are out this month show that spending on civil research and development in the United Kingdom has been static at 1·8 per cent. of national income since 1979 while that in all of our industrial competitors has risen steadily. I doubt whether the Secretary of State has even looked at the graphs.
The rise in other countries has accommodated the growth in opportunities for science and its application. R and D continues to rise as a proportion of GDP—in Germany from 2·3 to 2·8 per cent., in Japan from 1·8 to 2·7 per cent. and, with a far larger volume of research, in the United States from 1·6 to 2 per cent. The freeze in Britain shows in the failure to fund alpha-graded research projects, in the paucity and obsolesence of equipment, in the diminished international standing of our higher education, in the lack of career opportunities for research scientists, in the poor status of engineers in industry, in the shortage of teachers of science and mathematics, in the cantankerous and obstructive role of the Government in international scientific co-operation, in the low level of research and development in industry, in the loss of so many of our best scientists abroad, in the continuing loss of technological competitiveness, and in the deteriorating balance of payments.
So why bother with all this research and development business? Why not leave others to make the advances and pick up the science and technology from abroad? Why not have done with it all? What is wrong with the argument is that, first, in basic science, in as large an economy as ours, unless we work at the frontiers in high temperature superconductivity and developmental biology, molecular sciences, surface science and the rest, we will have no body of people who can develop, understand, produce or use the products and processes of tomorrow.
We have already had warnings from ICI, Glaxo, Wellcome, Smith, Kline and French, BP and the pharmaceutical industry that Britain is losing its viability as a base for applied research. That research depends on a ready supply of people and ideas from basic science. The new inter-disciplinary research centres are fine and necessary. However, with continued level funding and if each centre continues to be financed by sacrificing 30 or 40 of the project grants that get young scientists going and provide many of the new ideas and discoveries of which the hon. Member for Havant spoke, the IRCs will become small islands of excellence sustained by and communicating with the international scientific community but without any means of communicating with British industry, application, education and training in research, thus entirely defeating their purpose.
No one knows better than the Treasury—on no day better than today—the debilitating effect, as the oil revenues pass their peak, of the grinding 2 per cent. per annum loss of non-price competitiveness, which needs to be appreciated to make sense of our deteriorating trade figures. January was a bad month, but the trend is inescapable.
Industry needs to double its research and development if we are to match the present research intensity of German and Japanese industry. That funding is essential if we are to compete technologically. It means a £3 billion increase per annum in research and development funding, compared with the modest £100 million for the science base that was sought by ABRC and denied by the Secretary of State.
There is no meaningful contribution that can be made to remedy the huge deficiencies in industrial research by denying or redirecting the far more modest needs of the science base. There is no hope of achieving the increases needed in industrial research from spontaneous allocations of increased profits such as the Secretary of State spoke of. Such profits have already occurred. Between 1981 and 1986, industrial profits increased by 70 per cent. in real terms, but industry's funding of research and development increased by only 20 per cent. The magnitude of the increase in industrial research and development that is required is too large to be brought about by discretionary grants. We need to bring about a step change in British industrial practice while we still have a science base to support it.
Industry should be given a powerful fiscal incentive to increase its funding of its research and development. Britain is alone among the industrial countries in having had no such fiscal incentive scheme. The Inland Revenue survey of fiscal incentives for R and D spending did an honest job of reporting overseas practice and experience, but it stopped short of Mansfield's key paper in the 1986 "American Economic Review" that suggested how the American system could be improved. If we adapt Mansfield's suggestions, what we need, for a few years, is a high percentage grant for increments of R and D expenditure over a fixed base year, phasing into a grant to maintain the doubled level of expenditure for a further few years until firms have learnt the benefits of a higher level of R and D, which they will then sustain without the need for a continuing incentive. It is that step change that we must aim to bring about.
In addition to the fiscal incentive that will change the climate, specific programmes will be needed in such areas

as space and telecommunications where considerable co-ordination is required. Such necessary and practicable advances in industrial R and D make heavy demands on the people and the ideas produced by Britain's science base.
The increase in the science budget of £100 million recommended by the ABRC and rejected by the Government is needed in full and is needed this year. The ABRC is not "just another lobby", as the Under-Secretary described it. That is not something which a sensible Minister says to any lobby. It is certainly not something which one says to one's lawyer, doctor, fire brigade or plumber — to someone whom one has summoned to one's help, as the Government summoned the ABRC. Least of all should Ministers say that to the ABRC when, like the true mother, it has offered to centralise management—in a way quite alien to science but dear to the dictatorial heart of this Government—as the price for the funding urgently needed to save British science. But Solomon the Government are not. By refusing the funding the Secretary of State butchered the baby. He cannot reply to the ABRC report "A Strategy for the Science Base" because he has no strategy. A charade presided over by the Prime Minister is still a charade, albeit a prime ministerial charade.
Science has always been in politics. Now the Government have pushed politics into science just as they have pushed politics into the universities, the Church, the courts, and the BBC because they can brook no challenge to their autocratic rule. The consequence is that the Government have demonstrated their total incompetence.
Gone are the days when as the Minister responsible for information technology the Secretary of State boasted:
In this area we have a clear strategy". —[Official Report, 27 Nov. 1981; Vol. 12, c. 1150.]
He said that information technology was,
the area of fastest growth in public expenditure … something that I proudly point out to the Prime Minister on every possible occasion." —[Official Report, 17 February 1984; Vol. 54, c. 521.]
Does the Secretary of State remember that? Gone is Information Technology year. Gone is the support for innovation programme. Gone is the Alvey programme, and its successor is never to come. "Automate or liquidate," cried the Secretary of State, whereupon Sinclair and Acorn computers, of which the Secretary of State justly boasted, did both.

Mr. Kenneth Baker: Today I had a meeting with Olivetti-Acorn at which the company announced that it had sold more than 1 million Acorn computers to British schools and launched a new product—Archimedes. The hon. Gentleman really must get up to date.

Dr. Bray: Did the Secretary of State ask Olivetti how much it had paid for Acorn—[Interruption.] They went bankrupt. The Secretary of State bought one Acorn computer and I bought two. The Archimedes machine is a splendid machine but it was an example of an industrial initiative denied backing by the Government in terms of the comprehensive increases in educational activity and in application needed to sustain that initiative.
The Secretary of State was first recruited to the Government partly because on the Treasury and Civil Service Committee he was being too helpful to my colleagues and me in showing how the Government had, in two brief years, destroyed more British industry than Hitler managed to do in the war and partly to bring some


lighthearted showbiz to that ravaged industrial scene. Industry, the Health Service, even the education system can be rebuilt in a decade as the Germans and Japanese have shown. A peerless scientific tradition that has taken centuries to build will be destroyed and dissolved in 10 brief years if the Government are allowed to proceed any further on their present course. That crime would be remembered long after many other wounds, at the time apparently more grievous, have healed and been forgotten.
I urge the House to reject the Government's amendment and support our motion.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Education and Science (Mr. Robert Jackson): This has been a reflective debate in which we have heard some considered and thoughtful speeches addressing complex issues. Thankfully, in the process, we have sometimes eluded the customary acrimonies of party debates, although the hon. Member for Motherwell, South (Dr. Bray) did his best towards the end of his speech with some judicious misquotations.
My hon. Friend the Member for Aldershot (Mr. Critchley) has an article in today's edition of The Independent in which he casts strictures on ministerial speeches, particularly the wind-up speeches made by luckless junior Ministers who he says gabble through their briefs scratching — I will not say what he says they scratch. I cannot promise high-flown rhetoric such as my hon. Friend would like, or indeed flights of fancy, and I do not think that they are particularly appropriate to this subject.
I shall try to rise to the high level of the debate and the best way to do that is to set the debate in a wider international context, which is sometimes not sufficiently appreciated. However, I noticed that in his excellent speech my hon. Friend the Member for Havant (Sir I. Lloyd) emphasised the importance of that context, particularly in Europe. He stressed the need to develop strategies for Britain to exploit research and development at home and abroad.
I should like to look first at the similarities in the position of science in Britain and that of other countries and then to look at the differences. Unfortunately, it is necessary to use some figures and statistics when making those comparisons and I apologise for that. However, in matters of science it is necessary that we strive for a degree of objectivity and logic and figures are helpful to that.
I shall deal first with the share of the gross domestic product devoted to science. When looking at those figures, the hon. Member for Motherwell, South will see that he has gone over the top in some of his language. The figures show that Britain is in the middle of the league in terms of the share of the GDP devoted to science. The figure for Britain is 2·33 per cent., for France it is 2·31 per cent., in the Federal Republic of Germany it is 2·66 per cent. and in Italy, our nearest comparator in terms of the size of GDP, it is only 1·33 per cent.

Mr. Douglas: What about defence?

Mr. Jackson: I shall deal with defence in a moment.
The next set of similar figures is the Government's research and development spend as a proportion of GDP. That is the proportion spent by Government, leaving aside

industry. It shows that Britain is near the top of the league. In spite of that, I will not follow the hon. Member for Motherwell, South in his argument that we should somehow fix an arbitrary percentage of GDP to be devoted to research and development. In 1985, 1·3 per cent. of GDP was spent on Government research and development. That compares with 1·13 per cent. in the Federal Republic of Germany and 0·95 per cent. in Italy.
Another similarity—this is important because it has come up in various ways during the debate — is the percentage of GDP devoted by the Government to the advancement of knowledge. Some strictures were cast by my right hon. Friend the Member for Kincardine and Deeside (Mr. Buchanan-Smith) and it was referred to by the hon. Members for Truro (Mr. Taylor) and for Oxford, East (Mr. Smith). When one looks at the figures for the commitment to basic science they do not bear out the strictures. They show that Britain is in the middle of the league and, as my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State said, we achieve good results. In Britain the figure is 0·28 per cent. as compared with 0·05 per cent. in the United States of America, which has a huge GDP, 0·27 per cent. in Japan, 0·23 per cent. in Italy and 0·39 per cent. in France. That shows that Britain is in the middle of the league table. It is certainly not at the bottom.
We agree with the analysis made by my hon. Friend the Member for Havant on the importance of basic science. However, when deciding in which of the fundamental projects to invest, decisions have to be made. It must be right for the Government and the scientific community to keep an eye on the potential exploitability of science as well as its purely intellectual attractions, which are also important. It is relevant to ask questions about exploitability. That is what is now happening and we should welcome it.

Mr. Dalyell: If all is as well as the Minister says and we are in the middle of the league table, how does he explain the case to which my hon. Friend the Member for Oxford, East (Mr. Smith) referred whereby there are cries de coeur from many of our most senior science professors about their most brilliant students at post-doctoral level seeking posts abroad?

Mr. Jackson: I shall deal with that because the subject has been raised many times during the debate and it must be answered. I shall do my best to answer it. The brain drain study, which was quoted particularly by the hon. Member for Truro, does not bear out the construction placed upon it by the hon. Members for Truro or for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell). In 1962, which is when the last major brain-drain study was made, 30 per cent. of postdoctoral students emigrated, whereas in 1982, the year to which the present study relates, only 9 per cent. emigrated. There is a migration and immigration of talent in this area.
I was going through a list of the similarities between the position of British science and that of science in other countries. I wish to deal with one similarity, which is crucial. In all countries, there is a tendency for the rate of spend on research and development to slow down. In Britain, as the hon. Member for Motherwell, South said, Government expenditure has increased by 15 per cent. in real terms since 1979. That growth is continuing. However, if we consider changes in Government expenditure on research and development between 1981 and 1985 as a percentage of GDP, we see that the figure is minus 0·1 per


cent. In the Federal Republic of Germany the figure is precisely zero. In the United States, the figure is plus 0·1 per cent. and in Japan it is zero. France is the only country where there has been an upward lift of 0·2 per cent.

Dr. Bray: Will the Minister give way?

Mr. Jackson: I shall give way in a moment.
We must recognise that, throughout the world, there is a shift away from the exponential rates of growth in investment. The golden age years of investment in science were the 1950s and the 1960s. Between 1959 and 1963, there was a 30 per cent. annual growth in science spending in Britain. That is not happening in any country nowadays. We have moved into a situation of steady state in most science. That is perhaps happening first in Britain, but it will happen in many other countries.

Dr. Bray: With all respect, the Under-Secretary of State is behind the times. He is not taking account of the current mood. He should consider those graphs which show clear, continuing increases in all industrial competitors, while Britain has remained stagnant.

Mr. Jackson: There has been a substantial slow—down in investment in science in all countries, compared with previous levels. In Britain, it has gone further than in many countries, but the situation is the same in all countries.
What is flowing from that is something that we again find happening around the world—a focus on the need to manage science more effectively. In Britain, the United States and the Federal Republic of Germany, there is an emphasis on the exploitability of science and a move away from near-market science. We see the same emphasis on selectivity and concentration being brought forward with concepts such as university research centres.

Mr. Straw: Will the Minister give way?

Mr. Jackson: I shall not give way. I must get on.

Mr. Straw: rose—

Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman must not persist in trying to intervene.

Mr. Jackson: There is also a tendency throughout the world towards rationalisation of access to costly scientific equipment. The answer to the point raised by the hon. Member for Blackburn (Mr. Straw) is that we are negotiating to stay in CERN, by seeking a reduction in the cost to Britain of our participation, in line with the Kendrew committee recommendations.
So far, I have been talking about similarities between British science and science in other countries. I now wish to say a few words about the differences. First, there is the relatively low industrial investment in research and development, where we are substantially lower, in terms of the proportion of GDP, than either the Federal Republic of Germany, the United States or Japan, although we share the problem with France and Italy who invest even lower proportions of their GDP in industrial R and D than we do.
Another difference is the relatively high commitment to defence in Britain. That is reflected in the share of GDP devoted to civil R and D. In Britain, this figure is 0.6 per cent. In France the figure is 1 per cent. In the Federal Republic of Germany, the figure is 1 per cent., but, on the other hand, in the United States and Japan, it is lower than in Britain. That reflects a long-standing pattern with deep

historical roots. The hon. Member for Truro was right when he said that the responsibility, or blame, for that falls equally on both Conservative and Labour Governments. The Government have reflected on this issue each year, in their decision on the balance between civil and military R and D, as the public expenditure process continues.
There is another difference between science in Britain and science in other countries—the exceptional quality and range of British science. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State referred to the recent citation study. It showed that in 1982 Britain had 8·9 per cent. of world citations compared with 4·3 per cent. for France, 6·2 per cent. for Germany and 6·3 per cent. for Japan. My impression is that Britain fields teams of high quality in a wide range of activities.
There is another difference between Britain and other countries. We have a relatively weak system of central management of science and an unusual degree of academic self-government. The contrast, especially between Britain and the continent, is important. In academic science in Britain, half the funding of science goes through the universities, where it is administered on the basis of academic self-government. I think that my right hon. Friend the Member for Kincardine and Deeside failed to recognise the full extent of the UGC's autonomy in allocating resources between institutions. The other half of the Government's scientific expenditure goes to the research councils. There are separate research councils, run by peers who jealously guard their academic independence. As for departmental expenditure, there are separate Government Departments with a separation of responsibilities, with consequences that were criticised by the hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, Central (Mr. Cousins).
Britain's model of diffused management, with a high degree of academic self-government, can be compared with the system in other countries — for example, France, the Federal Republic of Germany and Italy, where there are central science Ministries, single research councils and considerable scope for political override of scientific decisions. That is why there has been a recent move in this country—an overdue one—which was described by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State, towards a strengthening of the capacity to take horizontal as well as vertical decisions about the management of science. Changes are being made within the Government following the House of Lords report. Changes are being made within the research councils, and changes have been recommended by the Advisory Board for the Research Councils within the universities to which my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State referred.
The conclusions to be drawn from this picture of the similarities with and differences between British science and science in other countries is that, first, the intellectual output of British science continues to be excellent and, secondly, our financial inputs as a proportion of GDP are broadly in line with those of our competitors. No one can say that those are out of line or that we are markedly under-performing in one of those indicators. Nevertheless, there is undoubtedly within the scientific community a sense of unease, which has been reflected in every speech made in the debate, and we must recognise that. We must ask ourselves about the causes of that phenomenon. They are rooted in the analysis which I have made of similarities and differences in the position of British science.
Despite the fact that our GDP has been growing relatively fast in recent years, its size is relatively small. The total volume of British GDP is 75 per cent, of that in France and well below that in the Federal Republic of Germany. Consequently, the same proportion of GDP spent on research produces rather less money in Britain. We spend a great deal more than Italy, which is our nearest GDP comparator. We must set that fact against our scientists' high ambitions and high abilities based on their historic successes and the vitality of our scientific community.
The Government's view is that it is not possible to bridge the gap between the reach of our scientists and their grasp by increasing public expenditure on the scale recommended by the Opposition. What Britain must do is what all countries must do, and what they are increasingly having to do — manage science more effectively without damaging scientific creativity. I am conscious that this is a very great challenge to the scientific and academic community because, in the British system, they carry a great burden of responsibility for rational, cost-effective and purposive direction of science. I stress the word "purposive", a word used by the Advisory Board for the Research Councils.
The Government have a part to play in all this but the decisive factor will in the end be the energy, creativity and flexibility of our scientific community.

Question put:—

The House divided: Ayes 202, Noes 249.

Division No. 198]
[9.59 pm


AYES


Adams, Allen (Paisley N)
Cummings, John


Allen, Graham
Cunningham, Dr John


Anderson, Donald
Dalyell, Tam


Archer, Rt Hon Peter
Darling, Alistair


Armstrong, Hilary
Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)


Barnes, Mrs Rosie (Greenwich)
Davis, Terry (B'ham Hodge H'l)


Barron, Kevin
Dewar, Donald


Battle, John
Dixon, Don


Beckett, Margaret
Dobson, Frank


Beith, A. J.
Doran, Frank


Benn, Rt Hon Tony
Douglas, Dick


Bermingham, Gerald
Duffy, A. E. P.


Bidwell, Sydney
Dunnachie, Jimmy


Blair, Tony
Dunwoody, Hon Mrs Gwyneth


Blunkett, David
Eadie, Alexander


Boateng, Paul
Eastham, Ken


Boyes, Roland
Evans, John (St Helens N)


Bradley, Keith
Ewing, Harry (Falkirk E)


Bray, Dr Jeremy
Ewing, Mrs Margaret (Moray)


Brown, Gordon (D'mline E)
Fatchett, Derek


Brown, Nicholas (Newcastle E)
Fearn, Ronald


Buchan, Norman
Field, Frank (Birkenhead)


Buckley, George J.
Fields, Terry (L'pool B G'n)


Caborn, Richard
Fisher, Mark


Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)
Flannery, Martin


Campbell, Ron (Blyth Valley)
Flynn, Paul


Carlile, Alex (Mont'g)
Foot, Rt Hon Michael


Cartwright, John
Foster, Derek


Clark, Dr David (S Shields)
Foulkes, George


Clarke, Tom (Monklands W)
Fyfe, Maria


Clay, Bob
Galbraith, Sam


Clelland, David
Garrett, John (Norwich South)


Clwyd, Mrs Ann
Garrett, Ted (Wallsend)


Cohen, Harry
Godman, Dr Norman A.


Cook, Frank (Stockton N)
Graham, Thomas


Corbett, Robin
Grant, Bernie (Tottenham)


Corbyn, Jeremy
Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)


Cousins, Jim
Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)


Cryer, Bob
Grocott, Bruce





Hardy, Peter
Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)


Harman, Ms Harriet
Mowlam, Marjorie


Haynes, Frank
Mullin, Chris


Healey, Rt Hon Denis
Murphy, Paul


Heffer, Eric S.
Nellist, Dave


Henderson, Doug
O'Brien, William


Hinchliffe, David
O'Neill, Martin


Hogg, N. (C'nauld &amp; Kilsyth)
Owen, Rt Hon Dr David


Home Robertson, John
Patchett, Terry


Hood, Jimmy
Pike, Peter L.


Howarth, George (Knowsley N)
Powell, Ray (Ogmore)


Howells, Geraint
Prescott, John


Hughes, John (Coventry NE)
Primarolo, Dawn


Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)
Quin, Ms Joyce


Hughes, Roy (Newport E)
Randall, Stuart


Hughes, Sean (Knowsley S)
Redmond, Martin


Hughes, Simon (Southwark)
Rees, Rt Hon Merlyn


Illsley, Eric
Reid, Dr John


Ingram, Adam
Richardson, Jo


Janner, Greville
Roberts, Allan (Bootle)


John, Brynmor
Robertson, George


Jones, Barry (Alyn &amp; Deeside)
Robinson, Geoffrey


Jones, Ieuan (Ynys Môn)
Rogers, Allan


Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S W)
Rooker, Jeff


Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald
Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)


Kirkwood, Archy
Rowlands, Ted


Lambie, David
Ruddock, Joan


Lamond, James
Sedgemore, Brian


Leadbitter, Ted
Sheerman, Barry


Leighton, Ron
Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert


Lestor, Joan (Eccles)
Shore, Rt Hon Peter


Litherland, Robert
Short, Clare


Livingstone, Ken
Skinner, Dennis


Livsey, Richard
Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)


Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)
Smith, C. (Isl'ton &amp; F'bury)


Lofthouse, Geoffrey
Soley, Clive


McAllion, John
Spearing, Nigel


McAvoy, Thomas
Steel, Rt Hon David


McCartney, Ian
Steinberg, Gerry


Macdonald, Calum A.
Stott, Roger


McFall, John
Strang, Gavin


McKelvey, William
Straw, Jack


McLeish, Henry
Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)


Maclennan, Robert
Taylor, Matthew (Truro)


McNamara, Kevin
Thomas, Dr Dafydd Elis


McWilliam, John
Thompson, Jack (Wansbeck)


Madden, Max
Turner, Dennis


Mahon, Mrs Alice
Wall, Pat


Marshall, David (Shettleston)
Wallace, James


Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)
Walley, Joan


Martin, Michael J. (Springburn)
Wardell, Gareth (Gower)


Martlew, Eric
Wareing, Robert N.


Maxton, John
Wigley, Dafydd


Meacher, Michael
Williams, Rt Hon Alan


Meale, Alan
Williams, Alan W. (Carm'then)


Michael, Alun
Wilson, Brian


Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)
Winnick, David


Michie, Mrs Ray (Arg'l &amp; Bute)
Wise, Mrs Audrey


Millan, Rt Hon Bruce
Worthington, Tony


Mitchell, Austin (G't Grimsby)
Young, David (Bolton SE)


Moonie, Dr Lewis



Morgan, Rhodri
Tellers for the Ayes:


Morley, Elliott
Mrs. Llin Golding and


Morris, Rt Hon A. (W'shawe)
Mr. Allen McKay.


NOES


Adley, Robert
Baldry, Tony


Alexander, Richard
Banks, Robert (Harrogate)


Alison, Rt Hon Michael
Beaumont-Dark, Anthony


Allason, Rupert
Bellingham, Henry


Amess, David
Bendall, Vivian


Amos, Alan
Bennett, Nicholas (Pembroke)


Arbuthnot, James
Benyon, W.


Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)
Biggs-Davison, Sir John


Arnold, Tom (Hazel Grove)
Blackburn, Dr John G.


Ashby, David
Bonsor, Sir Nicholas


Aspinwall, Jack
Boscawen, Hon Robert


Atkins, Robert
Boswell, Tim


Baker, Rt Hon K. (Mole Valley)
Bottomley, Mrs Virginia


Baker, Nicholas (Dorset N)
Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich)






Bowis, John
Grylls, Michael


Boyson, Rt Hon Dr Sir Rhodes
Hamilton, Hon Archie (Epsom)


Braine, Rt Hon Sir Bernard
Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)


Brandon-Bravo, Martin
Hanley, Jeremy


Brazier, Julian
Hannam, John


Bright, Graham
Hargreaves, A. (B'ham H'll Gr')


Brown, Michael (Brigg &amp; Cl't's)
Hargreaves, Ken (Hyndburn)


Bruce, Ian (Dorset South)
Harris, David


Buchanan-Smith, Rt Hon Alick
Haselhurst, Alan


Buck, Sir Antony
Hawkins, Christopher


Budgen, Nicholas
Hayes, Jerry


Burns, Simon
Hayhoe, Rt Hon Sir Barney


Burt, Alistair
Hayward, Robert


Butcher, John
Heathcoat-Amory, David


Butler, Chris
Heddle, John


Butterfill, John
Hicks, Robert (Cornwall SE)


Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)
Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L.


Carttiss, Michael
Hill, James


Cash, William
Hind, Kenneth


Chalker, Rt Hon Mrs Lynda
Hogg, Hon Douglas (Gr'th'm)


Channon, Rt Hon Paul
Holt, Richard


Chapman, Sydney
Hordern, Sir Peter


Chope, Christopher
Howard, Michael


Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)
Howarth, Alan (Strat'd-on-A)


Clark, Sir W. (Croydon S)
Howarth, G. (Cannock &amp; B'wd)


Colvin, Michael
Howell, Rt Hon David (G'dford)


Conway, Derek
Howell, Ralph (North Norfolk)


Coombs, Simon (Swindon)
Hughes, Robert G. (Harrow W)


Cope, John
Hunt, David (Wirral W)


Couchman, James
Hunt, John (Ravensbourne)


Critchley, Julian
Hurd, Rt Hon Douglas


Currie, Mrs Edwina
Irvine, Michael


Curry, David
Irving, Charles


Davies, Q. (Stamf'd &amp; Spald'g)
Jack, Michael


Davis, David (Boothferry)
Jackson, Robert


Day, Stephen
Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey


Devlin, Tim
Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)


Dickens, Geoffrey
Jones, Robert B (Herts W)


Dorrell, Stephen
Jopling, Rt Hon Michael


Dover, Den
Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine


Dunn, Bob
Key, Robert


Dykes, Hugh
King, Roger (B'ham N'thfield)


Evennett, David
Kirkhope, Timothy


Fairbairn, Nicholas
Knapman, Roger


Fallon, Michael
Knight, Dame Jill (Edgbaston)


Farr, Sir John
Knowles, Michael


Favell, Tony
Knox, David


Fenner, Dame Peggy
Lamont, Rt Hon Norman


Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)
Lang, Ian


Fookes, Miss Janet
Latham, Michael


Forman, Nigel
Lawrence, Ivan


Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)
Leigh, Edward (Gainsbor'gh)


Forth, Eric
Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark


Fox, Sir Marcus
Lightbown, David


Franks, Cecil
Lilley, Peter


Freeman, Roger
Lloyd, Sir Ian (Havant)


French, Douglas
Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)


Gale, Roger
Lord, Michael


Gardiner, George
Luce, Rt Hon Richard


Garel-Jones, Tristan
Lyell, Sir Nicholas


Gill, Christopher
McCrindle, Robert


Gilmour, Rt Hon Sir Ian
Macfarlane, Sir Neil


Goodhart, Sir Philip
MacGregor, Rt Hon John


Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles
MacKay, Andrew (E Berkshire)


Gow, Ian
McLoughlin, Patrick


Gower, Sir Raymond
McNair-Wilson, M. (Newbury)


Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)
McNair-Wilson, P. (New Forest)


Greenway, John (Ryedale)
Madel, David


Gregory, Conal
Malins, Humfrey


Griffiths, Sir Eldon (Bury St E')
Mans, Keith


Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth N)
Maples, John


Grist, Ian
Marland, Paul


Ground, Patrick
Marlow, Tony





Marshall, John (Hendon S)
Summerson, Hugo


Marshall, Michael (Arundel)
Taylor, Ian (Esher)


Martin, David (Portsmouth S)
Taylor, John M (Solihull)


Maude, Hon Francis
Taylor, Teddy (S'end E)


Mayhew, Rt Hon Sir Patrick
Tebbit, Rt Hon Norman


Meyer, Sir Anthony
Temple-Morris, Peter


Miller, Hal
Thompson, D. (Calder Valley)


Mills, Iain
Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)


Miscampbell, Norman
Thorne, Neil


Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)
Thurnham, Peter


Mitchell, David (Hants NW)
Townend, John (Bridlington)


Moate, Roger
Townsend, Cyril D. (B'heath)


Monro, Sir Hector
Tredinnick, David


Montgomery, Sir Fergus
Trippier, David


Morris, M (N'hampton S)
Trotter, Neville


Morrison, Hon Sir Charles
Twinn, Dr Ian


Moss, Malcolm
Vaughan, Sir Gerard


Moynihan, Hon Colin
Waddington, Rt Hon David


Neubert, Michael
Walden, George


Newton, Rt Hon Tony
Walker, Bill (T'side North)


Onslow, Rt Hon Cranley
Waller, Gary


Paice, James
Ward, John


Patnick, Irvine
Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)


Ryder, Richard
Watts, John


Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)
Wheeler, John


Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)
Whitney, Ray


Shersby, Michael
Widdecombe, Ann


Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)
Wiggin, Jerry


Squire, Robin
Wilkinson, John


Stanbrook, Ivor
Wilshire, David


Steen, Anthony
Winterton, Mrs Ann


Stern, Michael
Winterton, Nicholas


Stevens, Lewis
Wood, Timothy


Stewart, Allan (Eastwood)
Woodcock, Mike


Stewart, Andy (Sherwood)
Yeo, Tim


Stewart, Ian (Hertfordshire N)



Stokes, John
Tellers for the Noes:


Stradling Thomas, Sir John
Mr. Tony Durant and


Sumberg, David
Mr. David Maclean.

Question accordingly negatived.

Question, That the proposed words be there added, put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No. 30 (Questions on amendments) and agreed to.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: forthwith declared the Main Question, as amended, to be agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House notes the essential and increasingly important contribution made by the science base in higher education and the research councils to the nation's economic and social development; applauds the achievements of Britain's scientists which are second only to those of the United States of America with its vastly greater resources; welcomes the 15 per cent, in real terms increase in the science budget since 1979, the progress made by the University Grants Committee and research councils in promoting better value for money and responsiveness, and the new central machinery announced in Cm. 185 for considering science and technology priorities; and commends the Government's intention to take further steps to enhance the strength and quality of the science base and to ensure that research outcomes are better exploited to the United Kingdom's benefit.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Ordered,
That, at this day's sitting, the Lords Amendments to the Norfolk and Suffolk Broads Bill may be proceeded with, though opposed, until any hour.—[Mr. Lightbown.]

Orders of the Day — Norfolk and Suffolk Broads Bill

Clause 2

FUNCTIONS OF THE AUTHORITY: GENERAL

Lords amendment: No. 1, page 2, line 33, leave out from "to" to second "the" in line 34 and insert—
(a) the variations made by Part I of Schedule 2 to this Act; and
(b) any variation made in accordance with the provisions of Part II of that Schedule;".

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. Colin Moynihan): I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.

Mr. Speaker: With this it will be convenient to take Lords amendment No. 10.

Mr. Moynihan: The purpose of amendment No. 1, together with the associated amendment, No. 10, to schedule 2, is to give effect to undertakings respectively to the Great Yarmouth Court and Haven Commissioners and Associated British Ports during the Select and Standing Committee stages in the House. For technical and timing reasons the amendment could not be tabled before the Bill left the House.
The purpose and effect of the two amendments is to remove from the map of the Broads, as defined by the deposited map, two separate small areas of Great Yarmouth and Lowestoft respectively. In each case the area forms part of these two ports. After discussion with both harbour authorities we agreed that, at this time, there would be no real benefit to the Broads Authority from these areas—[interruption.]—including the areas within its jurisdiction.

Mr. Speaker: Order. Would hon. Members beyond the Bar please leave the Chamber, or come and join us?

Mr. Moynihan: We in no way rule out the possibility, at some future date, of including Mutford Lock and Lake Lothing, not only in the Broads area, but within the navigation area of the Broads Authority. We believe that this could best be pursued in discussion with Associated British Ports, the owner, by the new authority when it is established.

Mr. Allan Roberts: This is not a major amendment, but it covers the issue of designation and leaves out
any variation made in accordance wih the provisions of Part II of that Schedule".
Clause 2 is important. It goes to the heart of the legislation in relation to the designated area. During the proceedings in another place Lord Belstead undertook to ensure that a code of guidance would be issued regarding commitments to long-term conservation. As a result of that undertaking, many amendments that would otherwise have been tabled by the Opposition were not tabled. We

still have not received any publication or statement of when such a code of guidance will be produced. The then responsible Minister has moved to another portfolio—a significant one. We are concerned that we will not be able to consider the amendments that we thought we might debate. Will the Minister tell us when we can expect the code of guidance on long-term conservation? Is it forthcoming? What will it entail? Will we have adequate time to debate it?

Mr. Moynihan: With the leave of the House, Mr. Deputy Speaker, as the hon. Member for Bootle (Mr. Roberts) will be aware, we are not in a position to discuss whether it was right for certain amendments to be tabled by the Opposition, although I respect the strength of feeling of those Opposition Members who have urged further amendments. I undertake to write to the hon. Gentleman about his specific request. The commitment was given in another place, and we intend to uphold it.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 11

LICENCES REQUIRED FOR CONSTRUCTION OF WORKS

Lords Amendment: No. 2, in page 10, line 20, leave out "maintain".

Mr. Moynihan: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.
The amendment makes a minor refinement to the original wording of clause 11. It exempts straightforward maintenance from the works licensing requirements. On reflection, we decided that it would be undesirable to require licensing of maintenance works, especially as failure to maintain waterside structures could affect safety of navigation.

Question put and agreed to.

Lords amendment: No. 3, in page 11, line 14, after "any" insert "reasonable".

Mr. Moynihan: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.
This amendment also makes a minor refinement to the works licensing procedure prescribed by clause 11. It is a technical amendment.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 13

NAVIGATION CHARGES

Lords amendment: No. 4, in page 12, line 26, leave out "conservation" and insert
conserving the natural beauty of any area".

Mr. Moynihan: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Harold Walker): With this we may take Lords amendments Nos. 5 and 17.

Mr. Moynihan: Amendments Nos. 4 and 5 correct imperfections in the original wording of clauses 13 and 17. The intention has always been to exclude from the authority's navigational revenue account expenditure incurred for purposes of nature conservation, but carried out in exercise of the largely navigation powers conferred on the authority by part II. The original imprecise reference to conservation has been replaced by the phrase "conserving the natural beauty of any area",


thereby attracting the extended interpretation that clause 25(2) applies to the phrase wherever it is used in the Bill.
Amendment No. 17 makes a similar change to the wording of paragraph 3 of schedule 5, where the less precise phrase "nature conservation" was originally used.

Mr. Peter Hardy: The Minister seemed to suggest that the amendment represents an improvement. He will need no instruction on definitions, but the word "conservation" is much more wide-ranging that the words "natural beauty". Some years ago I took through the House a Bill to protect the natterjack toad and the smooth snake. Few hon. Members would regard them as especially beautiful or as adding to the natural beauty of an area, but their protection was a necessary step in conservation. Conservation must mean the survival of the species. Whether or not they are attractive, they may have an important place in the natural order.
The replacement of "conservation" with words that seem to imply that something must be environmentally attractive is a dangerous step. I hope that the Minister will explain the advantage of the change, so as to make it acceptable to the House. The Bill is, by and large, not controversial, and it seems that their Lordships may have made a mistake, especially if they believe that, given recent decisions made in this Parliament, the House would retreat further from its proper commitment to the cause of conservation.

Mr. Nigel Spearing: I am sorry that this debate is delaying another, but that is not the fault of those of us who wish to speak. It is the fault of those who arrange our business, and I hope that the blame for any inconvenience caused to hon. Members will be laid at the door of those who decided the running order, and not aimed at hon. Members who wish to debate the amendments.
My hon. Friend the Member for Wentworth (Mr. Hardy) put his finger on an important principle that has run through the lengthy discussions inside and outside the House on this important conservation measure. I am sorry that the Minister had to move the amendment, because I understand that it was moved originally by the Government in the filled-up Bill stage in the Committee of another place and was not debated.
The Minister introduced the amendment as though it was a fair cop, saying that navigation charges should not go towards conservation. He is nodding his head. But not only navigation charges are involved here. Clause 14 deals with the authority's power to make levies on participating authorities. The amendment says that any expense incurred by the authority on conservation—as the Bill is worded now—must relate to preserving natural beauty. Those moneys will come from levies raised under clause 14, or any other funds which come from elsewhere. Perhaps the Minister will confirm that that is so. The amendment is much more important than it appears to be at first sight. I am sorry that it was not discussed in the Lords other than in Committee.
This is a controversial issue because the amendment will constrict the discretion of the authority in expenditure on "conservation". It will not be conservation; it will be
conserving the natural beauty of any area".
There is a big difference. I know that the Minister will say that clause 25(2) states:
References in this Act to conserving the natural beauty of an area include references to conserving its flora, fauna and geological and physiographical features.

However, the Minister and his hon. Friends have withstood any means of ensuring that the Bill is truly a conservation measure. I can prove that to the House in respect of what happened in the other place.
All the conservation interests clubbed together to suggest an amendment to this important Bill, to be discussed in another place. The amendment's importance can be judged by the fact that those bodies were the Council for National Parks, the Council for the Protection of Rural England, the Norfolk Naturalists Trust, the Ramblers Association, the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds, the Royal Society for Nature Conservation, and the Suffolk Trust for Nature Conservation. They said: let there be at the end of clause 2(1), which sets out the limited functions of the Broads Authority, the following amendment:
in such a way as to ensure their long term conservation"—
that is, the conservation of the Broads. Most people think that that is what the Bill is all about and that the main object of the Broads Authority, to be set up under the Bill, is that very purpose.
The conservation bodies went to the other place and said, "Please write that in. The provision does not supersede the three purposes mentioned in subsection (1), but those three purposes should be handled in such a way as to ensure the long-term conservation of the Broads." But the Government said no. The Select Committee summarised their case thus:
The Government argued that the proposed amendment was ambiguous. It appeared to give primacy to the needs of conservation, and would therefore fundamentally distort the careful balance, achieved by the Bill, of the three duties of the Authority. By giving greater priority to one particular interest, it would jeopardise the general agreement on the Bill"—
hon. Members should notice these words—
reached after lengthy negotiations. On the other hand, if the amendment was held not to give primacy to one interest, it would have no substantive effect. In any case, the special character of the Broads would be well protected by the actions of the new Authority in pursuing their three joint aims—there was no possibility of conservation being sacrificed to one of the other interests. Ministers had declared that the Bill did meet their objectives for the Broads.
The Bill may meet the Ministers' objectives, but they are not the objectives that many other people have in mind. I suggest to the House and to all those who may be listening to or may read our debate that the fact that the Government refused that modest and constructive amendment in another place puts a question mark over the effectiveness of the Bill and the Act that it will become.
I shall not weary the House with many other detailed examples of the concern that is felt, but I shall refer to just two. In the third sitting of the Standing Committee, I moved two amendments. One was about water quality and flow. The Minister said that the Anglian water authority was not to be constrained by directions from him in respect of water quality and flow. We all know that the water quality and the water level are keys to the proper conservation of the ecology of the Broads.
On the same day, I moved an amendment to ensure that there would be proper control of the water level. The Minister said that we could not have that because it would rehybridise the Bill. So the fear of many people is that the Bill is an inadequate instrument for carrying out what most people want the Broads Authority to do. As my hon. Friend the Member for Wentworth said, one does not


conserve only natural beauty, because if that is the criterion, the microscope and the test tube are not as important as they might otherwise be.
We fear that, if there is argument about the purposes of the Bill, and the powers that it gives to the new authority, the proper purposes of conservation will not be given the consideration that they deserve. It is a pity to end this important Bill's progress on a note of controversy. It is better, however, for there to be controversy here, and for the new authority to work properly and effectively, than for the reverse to happen.
I fear that the Act will not be a proper and sufficient trust deed for the trustees of such an important area, which is perhaps under commercial pressures like no other area of ecological interest. It will be a defective basis on which to carry out conservation. We hope, however, that the ladies and gentleman who are appointed trustees, will, through the good will that is necessary to run the legislation, make up for any defects in it.

Mr. Michael Carttiss: I respect the observations that the hon. Member for Newham, South (Mr. Spearing) has made in Standing Committee, and on the amendment tonight. I must, however, take issue with his description of the Bill as an adequate instrument. I think that it represents a realistic consensus from within the county of Norfolk.
One of the problems in dealing with the environment of the Broads over recent years has been the difficulty of reconciling the vast range of conflicting interests. It is not simply a case, for instance, of conservation versus navigation. Although I came to the House determined to oppose the establishment of yet more quangos — to which status the Broads Authority is in every danger of descending — I believe that the Government have the right solution to a problem that we have tended to regard as local but which, as the House has rightly recognised, has national significance.
Those of us who represent the people of Norfolk — and who look to the Bill — have a responsibility to acknowledge that there is a wider national dimension to the issue. The Government have recognised it; the Lords amendment recognises it; and I believe that to go any further would be wrong. I hope that the House will accept the Government's stance, recognising in doing so that it would be wrong to give precedence to any one of the many conflicting interests in Norfolk.
I welcome the amendment, and hope that the House will accept it.

Mr. John Garrett: I shall not follow the course taken by my neighbour, the hon. Member for Great Yarmouth (Mr. Cartiss), which I thought more appropriate to a Second Reading debate. This is a rather narrow amendment. Let me make some specific points about it.
I understood the Minister to say that the amendment relates to navigation charges, replacing the words in the Bill—
Expenditure … in connection with conservation, shall not be taken into account"—
with the words:
Expenditure … in connection with conserving the natural beauty of any area, shall not be taken into account".

Does that mean that navigation charges will not cover the damage caused by navigation traffic? Damage to banks may not affect the natural beauty of the area, but may greatly affect the flora and fauna of bankside areas. Is not the intention of the amendment to limit expenditure chargeable to navigation interests?
The place of navigation in the objectives of the new authority has been subject to discussion throughout the many stages of the Bill's progress. The Government have continually refused to rank conservation above navigation. That attitude is likely to be borne out by the amendment. As Lord Melchett said on 1 February:
this Bill was introduced because of widespread and long-standing concern about the deterioration in the conservation and amenity interests of the Norfolk Broads. It was not introduced because of concern about navigation or concern for some other interest such as agriculture in that area. It was introduced because of concern at the appalling loss of wildlife and loss of the natural beauty of the area." — [Official Report, House of Lords, 1 February 1988; Vol. 92, c. 903.]
Whenever the matter was raised in the other place—I read the debates this afternoon—the Government had recourse to the argument about the risk of rehybridising the Bill. Changes that would have reduced the primacy of navigation were turned down because, the Government argued, the Bill might be rehybridised because not all interests had been consulted.
If the amendment is not the subject of consultation, presumably it also may rehybridise the Bill. It singles out navigation interests as exempt from a general charge of conservation when local authorities face a share of expenditure on general conservation—not conservation of natural beauty which, in the context of the amendment, seems to relate just to landscape. It does not relate to freedom from pollution or the conservation of habitat and flora and fauna.
I shall not make any general observations about the Bill. We in Norfolk have waited 40 years for it, so we must welcome it, but it is very far from what conservation interests in the county want. It tries to strike a wholly impractical balance between navigation, conservation and commercial and recreational interests. I hope that a future Government will redress that balance.

Mr. Elliot Morley: Most of what I wanted to say has already been said, so I shall be brief. I want, however, to draw the House's attention to Lords amendment No. 17. Paragraph 13 of schedule 5 reads:
The Authority may, for the purpose of nature conservation—
(a) close to navigation any area at the edge of any waterway within the navigation area; or
(b) restrict navigation in any such area to specified classes of vessel.
The phrase "nature conservation" is to be removed and replaced by "natural beauty". As it stands, the Bill could protect a rare species of bird that is nesting next to a waterway because it provides a power to close that waterway. The amendment refers more to the natural beauty of the area, however, and does not take enough account of the rare species that are to be found in the area.
I take the point about conflicting interests, but we are aiming for a balance. In the original debate, the Minister said that the balance would be maintained by putting in the word "conservation", but it is now being taken out.

Mr. Hardy: My hon. Friend reminds me of a case which the Minister might like to consider. The bittern is an


extremely rare bird which is found in the Broads area in small numbers. Unfortunately, it is rarely seen. It hides in the reeds. Because it is not likely to be seen, it could easily be argued that it is not part of the natural beauty of the broads environment and therefore the authority would not be able to close a waterway to navigation as schedule 5 suggests because that argument may be used.

Mr. Morley: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that illustration. The Norfolk Broads is the only known breeding area of the European crane in the United Kingdom. It is extremely rare. On my reading of the amendment, the criterion of protecting such species is lost in the Bill. I believe that a balance between the three main interests should be struck, but I believe that it is being upset by the amendment, and I shall certainly vote against it.

Mr. Moynihan: With the leave of the House, I hope that I may assist Opposition Members.
The purpose of the amendments is to clarify exactly what is meant by conservation. We believed that the definition had been imprecisely drafted, and hon. Members will be aware, from studying the Bill closely, that by virtue of clauses 25(2), the words
conserving the natural beauty of an area
widen the effect of conservation rather than reduce those effects. They also cover
flora, fauna and geological and physiographical features".
Therefore, the amendments widen and define more precisely what conservation means—namely,
concerning the natural beauty of any area.
The hon. Member for Newham, South (Mr. Spearing) will be aware from the background notes and from our discussions that "conservation" in clauses 13 and 17 has always been intended to mean nature conservation. The definition in clause 25(2) is entirely acceptable to the Nature Conservancy Council and other conservation bodies that asked for the extended definition as in the National Parks and Access to the Countryside Act 1949, the Countryside Act 1968 and The Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981.
It would not be right and proper for me to comment on the other matters that have been raised with regard to primacy. These matters have been extensively debated and I do not believe that they arise again as a result of the amendments before the House.
Special reference has been made to bank maintenance. In general, bank maintenance is the responsibility of the Anglian water authority. Bank maintenance incurred by the Broads Authority for navigational reasons might be chargeable to the navigational revenue account. However, the special maintenance of banks — for example the regeneration of reed beds—would not, and should not, be financed through tolls on boat users. Clauses 13 to 17 seek to ensure that the navigational revenue account, and therefore tolls, have to cover expenditure incurred genuinely for navigational reasons. Such expenditure must be met by tolls, and that is the distinction that we have tried to make. I hope that I have assisted in clarifying that point.

Question put and agreed to.

Lords.amendment No. 5 agreed to.

Clause 25

INTERPRETATION

Lords amendment: No. 6, in page 19, line 13, at end insert—
'inland waters' has the same meaning as in the Water Resources Act 1963;

Mr. Moynihan: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to discuss Lords amendments Nos. 14, 15, 16, and 16A.

Mr. Moynihan: These amendments make refinements to the original wording of paragraphs 34 and 35 of schedule 3, which was not entirely satisfactory in two respects. First, both paragraphs as originally worded talked in terms of the quality of water in any part of the Broads. That wording was too wide, since it would have included tap water and such like, with which the Broads Authority should not be concerned. Amendment No. 6, with amendments Nos. 14 and 16, substitute a more precise concept, making use of the term "inland waters", which is defined in the Water Resources Act 1963 and includes all, and only, those waters with whose quality the Broads Authority will properly be concerned — rivers, broads, dykes, ponds and such like.
Secondly, neither paragraph, as originally worded, took proper account of the interests of the East Anglian Water Company. Furthermore, although paragraph 34 placed an obligation on the Anglian water authority to consult the broads authority before implementing proposals that could affect the quality of water in the Broads, paragraph 35 failed to place a corresponding obligation on the Broads Authority to consult the water authority or water company before exercising its powers in regard to water quality. Amendments Nos. 15 and 16A put those defects right.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 26

COMMENCEMENT

Lords Amendment: No. 7, in page 20, line 12, after
Section 1" insert
and sections 23 to 27".

Mr. Moynihan: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to discuss Lords amendment No. 8.

Mr. Moynihan: Amendments Nos. 7 and 8 are purely technical. They will ensure that the provisions of part IV, which consists mainly of the "nuts and bolts" needed for implementing the legislation fully, will be in force at the right time.

Question put and agreed to.

Lords amendment No. 8 agreed to.

Schedule 1

THE BROADS AUTHORITY

Lords amendment: No. 9, in page 24, line 16, at end insert—

Authority chief officer

The Authority shall not—



(a) a person to the office (by whatever name it is known) of chief officer of the Authority; or
(b) determine, or vary, any of the terms and conditions on which he is employed by the Authority;

without first consulting the Countryside Commission."

Mr. Moynihan: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.
Amendment 9 was tabled by the Government in response to the urging of the Countryside Commission. Each national park authority is required to appoint a national park officer and to consult the Commission before making that appointment or giving that officer any additional duties. The Commisson felt very strongly that in this respect, as in so many others, there was considerable merit in the Broads Authority following this precedent.

Question put and agreed to.

Lords amendment No. 10 agreed to.

Schedule 3

FUNCTIONS OF AUTHORITY

Lords amendment: No. 11 in page 26, line 6, leave out "subsection" and insert "subsections".

Mr. Moynihan: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to discuss Lords amendment No. 13.

Mr. Moynihan: These two amendments rectify minor imperfections in the way in which the Broads Authority had been written into other legislation, as the Bill's provisions were orginally drafted. In both cases the singular was wrongly used where the plural was needed.

Question put and agreed to.
Lords amendment: No. 12, in page 29, line 8, after "II" insert
and section 45(2) and (3)".

Mr. Moynihan: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.
This is a technical amendment that rectifies a small oversight. In applying to the new authority the provisions of the Ancient Monuments and Archaeological Areas Act 1979, we originally overlooked the need to confer on it a power contained in part III of the Act, which will enable the authority to incur expenditure on archaeological investigations.

Question put and agreed to.

Lords amendments Nos. 13, 14, 15, 16, 16A and 17 agreed to.

Schedule 6

APPLICATION TO AUTHORITY OF CERTAIN ENACTMENTS APPLYING TO LOCAL AUTHORITIES ETC.

Lords amendment: No. 18, in page 47, line 15, leave out from "Authority" to end of line 17 and insert
and any member of its Navigation Committee".

Mr. Moynihan: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to discuss Lords amendments Nos. 19 and 20.

Mr. Moynihan: These three amendments put right minor defects in schedule 6, as originally drafted, in the way in which the Broads Authority was made a local authority for the purpose of existing legislation.

Question put and agreed to.

Lords amendments Nos. 19 and 20 agreed to.

Schedule 7

TRANSITIONAL PROVISIONS

Lords amendment: No. 21, in page 49, line 35, leave out sub-paragraph (2) and insert—
(2) When the Secretary of State is satisfied that all of those members have been duly appointed, he shall, if he has not already exercised his powers under sub-paragraph (2A) below, do so.
(2A) If the Secretary of State is satisfied that at least 27 of those members have been duly appointed, he may by order specify a date for the purposes of this paragraph.
(2B) The Authority shall be deemed to have been duly constituted as from the specified date, notwithstanding the absence of some of its members.

Mr. Moynihan: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.
Amendment No. 21 is one of two amendments that are designed to facilitate the earliest possible establishment of the authority, by minimising the risk of delay in making appointments — particularly in regard to those about which my right hon. Friend will be required to consult interested bodies.
Amendment No. 21 will enable my right hon. Friend to make a commencement order, prescribing the date on which the new authority is to be established, as soon as 27 members — just over three quarters of the full membership—have been appointed, instead of all 33 of the members to be appointed by the local authorities and other appointing authorities — including my right hon. Friend himself. This seemed to us a wise precautionary measure, to guard against the possibility of delay in making even one single appointment — for whatever reason—preventing the establishment of the authority.

Mr. Allan Roberts: We are coming to the end of our consideration of the amendments. We welcome amendment No. 21 because we want the Norfolk Broads Authority to be established as quickly and effectively as possible. We want it to get on with the job that it has been given by Parliament. However, as Opposition Members have said throughout the proceeding on the Bill we shall watch carefully the body's work to try to assess whether it is as effective as the Minister claims it will be or whether our fears about the balance between navigation and conservation interests not having been properly established are justified. We fear that the commercial interests of those concerned with navigation have been given too much priority.
As I said on Third Reading, the proof of the pudding will be in the eating. We welcome the establishment of the authority as quickly as possible, but we are not convinced that it has all the powers that it needs and that the legislation has been drafted so as to make the body as effective as it should be. We shall examine developments carefully and return to the subject, bringing forward our own proposals to strengthen the legislation and the authority's powers if we discover that our fears are well founded.

Question put and agreed to.

Lords amendment: No. 22, in page 5, line 15, leave out from beginning to end of line 19 and insert—

Consultation

6. —(1) Consultations carried out by the Secretary of State before the coming into force of subsections (5) and (6) of section 1 of this Act shall be treated as satisfying the requirements in those subsections if they would have done so had those subsections been in force at the time in question.
(2) Consultations carried out by the Authority before the coming into force of subsection (3) of section 13 of this Act shall be treated as satisfying the requirements of that subsection if they would have done so had that subsection been in force at the time in question."

Mr. Moynihan: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.
Like amendment No. 21, which we have just agreed, amendment No. 22 is designed to facilitate the earliest possible establishment of the authority. In that context I should like to confirm that we now intend that the operative date should be 1 April 1989.

Question put and agreed to.

Education (Scotland)

Mr. Archy Kirkwood: I beg to move,
That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty, praying that the Education (Publication and Consultation Etc.) (Scotland) Amendment Regulations 1988 (S.I., 1988, No. 107), dated 26th January 1988, a copy of which was laid before this House on 27th January, be annulled.
I hope that the House will agree that there is an important function to be served in discussing the regulations. The negative order procedure requires a prayer against orders to be tabled. That was the only way in which we could apply pressure on the Government, so that they would concede a debate on the Floor of the House. I fully recognise that under the statutory instrument procedure it would have been possible to table a "take note" prayer, seeking to persuade the Government to debate the matter in a Committee at some time. However, I do not believe that the Government would have responded seriously enough to such an attempt to deal with the position in which we found ourselves. As soon as I found out that the regulations had been tabled on 27 January and that they were to take effect on the same day, I immediately took steps to table a prayer to secure this debate.
The regulations have significance in a strictly parliamentary context. If there was any doubt about that previously, I am sure that hon. Members on both sides of the House will agree that the recent report of the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments confirmed that these regulations — the Education (Publication and Consultation Etc) (Scotland) Amendment Regulations—are a significant document.
The Committee took the view that there were serious flaws in the regulations as laid. It concluded that there was a failure to comply with the Statutory Instruments Act 1946. That Act makes it clear, among other things, that statutory instruments should lie on the table for a minimum of 21 days prior to the implementation date. Of course, the 1946 Act gives specific exemptions for when the Government feel that they have to implement statutory instruments immediately. If that is necessary, the stipulated provisions are laid out in the Act. The Speaker should be advised, as should the equivalent authorities in the other place. The Government should make a statement saying why the legislation needs to take effect on the same day as the instruments are laid.
The Statutory Instruments Committee took the view that there had been a failure to comply with that part of the procedure. The Government said that there was a need for haste—we could argue about that — in letting the Strathclyde regional authority know what the Government's view was. They never at any stage argued a case for enforcement to take place immediately. In that respect, the conclusion of the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments was right.
The Committee also took the view that the drafting of the statutory instrument was substantially defective. The figure of 80 per cent. in regulation 2 is the formula for defining capacity and is left to be decided by persons unknown and undetermined. That leaves a substantial area of doubt within the regulations and the Joint Committee asked the Government to clarify their view on that matter. The Government's view was that the


calculation would require to be made by the local authority, having regard to the three criteria set down in the regulations. The Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments also took the view that that was an unsatisfactory way to proceed, which left a wide margin for error.
The question of the retrospective provisions in new paragraph (c)(ii) left areas for substantial doubt. There are real problems, therefore, in terms of the parliamentary precedent that is to be set by those regulations. For that reason, if for no other, there was a need for a debate tonight.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Michael Forsyth): The hon. Member for Roxburgh and Berwickshire (Mr. Kirkwood) mentioned parliamentary precedents. Surely he is aware that the existing regulations, where the Secretary of State is involved in the closure of a primary school of more than five miles' travelling distance or a secondary school of 10 miles' travelling distance, he does not find it necessary to specify who should determine whether the route is five or 10 miles. Surely the hon. Gentleman acknowledges that there is a precedent.

Mr. Kirkwood: There is surely a difference between geographical distance, which can be measured and about which there can be little argument, and these procedures and criteria, which are subjective. The analogy is not as exact as the Minister suggests.
In the context of the comments made by the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments, the Government have a duty to tell the House exactly what they are doing and why, and to give us an explanation of the procedure adopted.
The politics of the situation is inextricably linked with the Strathclyde schools organisation. Alliance Members recognise that, prior to 1981, the closure of any secondary school required the sanction of the Secretary of State. At that stage, the Labour party claimed that that was an abdication of responsibility by the Secretary of State. For the Conservatives, the hon. Member for Eastwood (Mr. Stewart) said that it was an appropriate devolution of power. But 1981, it now appears, was a long time ago.
In 1987, there was a further development of that policy, which was clearly in the direction of further devolution to local authorities. The regulations were further amended to increase local power. They gave local authorities the ability to put out options for consultations and enforce any of those options without further reference to the Secretary of State. The aim was also to increase the local authorities' power in respect of the closure of some nursery schools.
Here we have in 1988—

Mr. George Foulkes: Come on, put the boot in.

Mr. Kirkwood: Putting the boot in is not my style. It may be something to do with why I am a Liberal.
In 1988 we suddenly find the whole process being slammed into reverse. The House has a right to know whether the Government will pursue this policy further or whether it is a one-off reaction and a matter of reacting expediently to political events.
I was interested to note the claim made by the Secretary of State in announcing the new regulations that this intervention was necessary because the schools were so highly regarded by the parents that they happened to be full to capacity. Eighty per cent. capacity is an arbitrary figure. Such capacity can be affected by a series of factors, not just parental choice. Small schools can be 95 per cent. full, but, because they are small, they have fewer pupils and parents. Larger schools can fall below the 80 per cent. capacity rule. I should be interested to hear how the Minister arrived at that figure.
It is surely also important to consider other factors, such as whether those on school rolls are attracted from within the catchment area of a particular school. That factor has been left out of the equation by these new regulations. It can be argued that the regulations are defective and that they will not even serve to bring about the Government's stated intention.
Judging by the educational precedent in England and Wales, there may well be a case for a rational and well-thought-out process of appeal. The proposed system is certainly not rational. It is arbitrary, inconsistent and legally dubious, and it subverts the legitimate rights of local authorities.
The House will, however, want carefully to consider the short-term practical effects. Although the regulations will apply throughout Scotland, there is a special concern, and hon. Members from Strathclyde constituencies will obviously want to take part in the debate. Opposition to the regulations is considered by some to imply unqualified support for the proposals advocated by Strathclyde regional authority, but that authority has carried out the procedures of consultation hopelessly inadequately. We are opposed to its lack of sensitivity, consultation and consideration of the parents' wishes and to the disregard shown for the quality of education. The authority has conducted itself in so blatant way that the Government's heavy-handed intervention may even be justified.

Mr. Thomas Graham: Can the hon. Gentleman tell us how long the consultation period by Strathclyde lasted? How long did it take over the consultation?

Mr. Kirkwood: That depends on one's point of view. A lot of people in Paisley take the view that the Paisley proposals were cooked up by the Strathclyde education authority a long time ago and that the consultation process that it went through was something of a sham. But as far as I can make out, the consultation process started officially last summer, and has been continuing ever since.
The relative merits of the area review groups and the way in which the regional review group operated in conjunction with the area groups left a great deal to be desired. The situation that we are left with is, to any rational, objective observer, one of Hobson's choice—between the devil of the Secretary of State and the deep blue sea of the local education authority, which can be accused of not properly conducting the consultation process necessary to give expression to the real wishes of the local parents, which have been largely ignored.
The Minister has a difficult task in trying to explain how it is that he got himself into this situation and brought regulations forward in this way. We are anxious to hear just how the Government explain both their method of


procedure and the dubious technical legality of the regulations. It is with great interest that I wait to hear what the Minister has to say.

Mr. Allan Stewart: The best description of the interesting speech of the hon. Member for Roxburgh and Berwickshire (Mr. Kirkwood) is that it was a fraction muted. A quieter call to the barricades the House has not heard for some time.
I agree with the hon. Gentleman that it is legitimate to table a prayer against regulations for the purpose of having them debated in the House. These regulations may affect many schools. They may affect notably two which have been the subject of press comment — Paisley grammer school and Notre Dame. I had the probably unworthy thought that, in the past week or two, Liberals from the west end of Glasgow and the east end of Paisley, if such still exist, had perhaps been in touch with the hon. Member to express their views.
I have no wish to be partisan. I wish to be helpful and constructive. Perhaps, first of all, I can be helpful to the hon. Member for Paisley, South (Mr. Buchan), who raised this issue first on 27 January, when he said,
The documents contain a letter which had been sent to the headmaster of a grammer school in my constituency". —[Official Report, 27 January 1988; Vol. 126, c. 341.]
In the spirit of comradely help, I will send the hon. Member a map of Paisley, South, because Paisley grammar school does not come into his constituency, and has never done so; it is very clearly in the Paisley, North constituency.
The regulations, of course, raise a general issue, but the issue that concerns my constituents has been the treatment of a substantial number of parents whose sons and daughters attend Paisley grammar school.

Mr. Donald Dewar: How many?

Mr. Stewart: The hon. Member asks how many. I have had just under 200 letters from constituents. I do not know the precise figure, but, as a reasonable indication, I have had just under 200 letters from constituents in Barrhead and Neilston.
The hon. Member for Paisley, North (Mr. Adams) will have the opportunity to express his views later in the debate. It is with some interest that one reads in his local press that he says of himself that silence must not be taken as a sign of inactivity. The hon. Gentleman, the hon. Member for Glasgow, Garscadden (Mr. Dewar), the hon. Member for Paisley, South and others had a meeting, on 16 January with the convenor of Strathclyde region. When the hon. Member for Paisley, North left the meeting, he said, "I defended my constituents' interests," but of the meeting he said,
I have to say at this point that I will not report what else was said as the meeting was largely confidential.
He has an opportunity tonight to express his views.
As hon. Members will know, I have been the subject of letters from the hon. Members for Paisley, South and for Paisley, North accusing me of interfering in an outrageous manner in the affairs of Paisley. Only one of those hon. Members bothered to sign his letter. Above the hon. Member for Paisley, North, it said "PP" and then there was a blank; what that signifies I leave to the imagination of the House.
The hon. Member for Paisley, South has made the motivation for the proposed closure of Paisley grammar school brutally clear to the House. Referring to the parents of Paisley grammar, he said that the Secretary of State
knows perfectly well why they are fighting against moving to a new school in Merksworth. It is because they would be sharing with kids from working-class housing estates." [Official Report, 28 January 1988; Vol. 126, c. 502.]
I do not know whether the hon. Member for Paisley, North agrees with those sentiments, but it is outrageous for hon. Members so to describe the motivations of their constituents.
Speaking for my constituents, I can tell the House that that absurd charge is not true. I shall give a flavour to the views of my constituents. One says:
I cannot believe that the Government would condone this apparently rigged closure of a full and very successful school serving all areas of the community including a large proportion of families either unemployed or single parent who will suffer greatly if this 'merger' goes ahead.
One fact which is apparent in all this deviousness … is that the authorities seem totally against placing requests.
Another letter says:
There is a political will to close Paisley grammar school".
Another letter says:
My son attends this school through parental choice, a choice the Regional Council clearly intend precluding through the review process.
Strathclyde region is determined to continue its social restructuring in spite of complete opposition from parents, teachers and pupils.

Mrs. Margaret Ewing: I am listening with great interest to what the hon. Gentleman is saying. Will he say what criteria should operate for the retention or closure of a school?

Mr. Stewart: When a clearly popular school is targeted for closure against the wishes of parents, it is right that the Secretary of State should review it, in precisely the same way as he reviews closure proposals for rural schools or, in certain circumstances, denominational schools.
The hon. Member for Garscadden will have an opportunity tonight to tell us of the Labour party's attitude to the regulations. He may adopt the views of the hon. Member for Paisley, South—the chief Opposition spokesperson for Paisley on this issue—who, in his article in the Glasgow Herald, said of these fairly minor regulations:
I know of no such dangerously arbitrary action by any Government since the introduction of the emergency powers at the beginning of the last war.
The mind boggles.
That view is not universal among Labour Members. At Scottish Question Time last week, the hon. Member for Glasgow, Springburn (Mr. Martin), representing his constituents, said:
Why is the Minister not prepared to intervene and help out those schools?"—[0fficial Report, 24 February 1988; Vol. 128, c. 291.]
The hon. Gentleman wants more intervention; he wants my hon. Friend the Minister to go even further.

Mr. Michael J. Martin: The hon. Gentleman hits the nail on the head. Strathclyde has made an absolute mess of the consultation procedure. I am asking the Minister, why make flesh of one and fowl of the other? The children in Springburn are entitled to the same attention as the children in Paisley, even if Paisley does not want to come up to Springburn.

Mr. Stewart: The House will recognise the voice of an hon. Member genuinely representing the views of his constituents.

Mr. Graham: The hon. Gentleman mentioned earlier that the Secretary of State should look at schools which are popular with the parents. I can assure the hon. Gentleman that Saint Conval's primary school and Moss Edge primary school in my constituency, which are up for closure, are both excellent schools. The parents would love them to remain open. Strathclyde has been forced to close them because of the lack of funding from the Government. Will the Secretary of State intervene and support the parents by keeping those two schools open?

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Harold Walker): Order. The debate should be confined to the particulars of the regulations before the House.

Mr. Stewart: The schools mentioned by the hon. Member for Renfrew, West and Inverclyde (Mr. Graham) would not fall under the regulations. Of course, Strathclyde is right to pursue a general policy of schools rationalisation. It is a question not of resources, but of school numbers. The proposition before the House is simply that, in certain circumstances, the Secretary of State should review proposals where schools are, by any standards, very popular with parents, and are full or nearly full.
A number of hon. Members wish to speak. Before closing, I must tell my hon. Friend the Minister that there is concern about the future. I shall read just a couple of Sentences from a letter from a constituent:
It is not possible to predict how the region will react when parents are forced to appeal to the Secretary of State under the regulations. Parents have doubt about support and funding from the educational department and the security of staff. For these reasons I consider that some form of legislation is necessary to provide parents with the right to opt out of regional council control.
I have received more than 2,500 letters on this issue. It is an important general issue and it is important for the principles of parental involvement and parental choice which underlie so much of the Government's educational legislation.
The proposition before the House is sensible and reasonable. I do not expect for a moment that the Labour party will not oppose it, despite the honest reservations about what has happened expressed by the hon. Member for Glasgow, Springburn (Mr. Martin). I hope that the House will reject the prayer and that we shall have the support of the Liberal party.

Mr. Donald Dewar: The regulations are important, as they alter the boundaries of responsibility between local and central Government in regard to the closure of schools. Any school threatened by closure or by rezoning must be referred if its current roll is more than 80 per cent. of its capacity.
The debate is not about a particular school; it is a debate of general application, which will affect every part of Scotland and an unknown number of schools as councils in every part of the land face up to the problems of falling school rolls.
No one knows when these powers will be called into play in future. We are painfully aware why they are before the House now. The hon. Member for Roxburgh and

Berwickshire (Mr. Kirkwood) asked, a little naively, why the Government had decided upon 80 per cent. The reason is, simply, that 80 per cent. was the neat figure that ensured that one particular school fell on the right side of the line. That is the basis on which laws are now being made.
The regulations do not deal specifically with Paisley grammar school, but the educational policies of Paisley are dominating the debate. I must say to the hon. Member for Eastwood (Mr. Stewart) that it is an extraordinary story of backstairs influence and intrigue, culminating in the Prime Minister's thunderbolt from on high. When Paisley grammar school was threatened with closure, the parents banded together—as they were entitled to do, and as parents from other schools had done — to try to influence the course of the debate. No one would complain about that.
What was unusual, so far as we can piece the story together, was that Paisley grammar had some very unusual and powerful allies. In particular, Mr. Neil, the editor of The Sunday Times—whose precocious talents had been noticed at an early stage by Mr. Rupert Murdoch, who had therefore made him a great man—decided, with the aid of one of our ex-colleagues, Mr. Gerald Malone, to start a public campaign in The Sunday Times on behalf of Paisley grammar. Subsequently, the matter was drawn to the attention of the Prime Minister, who decided to intervene. On that basis, the law was to be changed.
According to The Sunday Times — I do not know whether it is accurate, although Mr. Neil is near to the centre of events—a dramatic tale then unfolded. A note was fired off to the Secretary of State, and a reluctant Minister was carpeted and sharply reminded of his duty. The right hon. and learned Member for Edinburgh, Pentlands (Mr. Rifkind) has said that that is not so; he has asked us to reject the credibility of Mr. Neil. That is a dispute that they may conduct between themselves, but the Secretary of State does himself a disservice by trying to pretend that these regulations were his idea and that he wanted to act in the way that he has acted.
It is not just The Sunday Times that has produced that version of the events. I shall quote a short BBC précis of what happened. There was a description on television of what happened. [Interruption.] The Minister laughs, but the précis says:
Mrs. Thatcher confronted her Scottish Secretary with the background and told him that she wanted a swift and positive solution. He returned to the Scottish Office to bang civil servants' heads together"—
[Interruption.] Yes, it is comic, but all the evidence points to the fact that at least the general drift of this account is correct. That is why we find it alarming.
From then on the school's future was never in doubt. To make maximum political capital, the Scottish Office, No. 10 and the party political advisers planned that the decision would be announced in a letter to the school's rector, signed by the Prime Minister.
I do not say that that account is accurate in every particular, but I believe that the general picture of the Secretary of State having been bounced in the way that I have described is right. It is a sad commentary on what is happening.
I object to what has happened, because I believe that a complicated, difficult and often bitter process was under way. I believe that many people felt ill used by the local authority's decisions. I suspect that in the circumstances it was inevitable that people would feel ill used, but at least the Government and the Opposition have one thing in


common: given the enormous and dramatic fall in school rolls, which is particularly accentuated in the Paisley area, schools had to close. However, I do not believe that the Government were entitled, on a completely arbitrary basis, to pluck one school out of the whole system and say that, whatever the consequences for the other schools in the area, that school was inviolate and would be preserved. But that is what happened.
I, too, have received many letters on this issue. Before the Prime Minister's intervention, I received many letters from parents whose children are at Paisley grammar school. I have also received many letters from parents whose children are at St. Aelred's, Merksworth, Stanley Green and a number of other Paisley schools. When the Prime Minister took that decision and signed the letter that went to the headmaster of Paisley grammar, I wonder whether she considered the implications for parents with children in those schools. That decision may have been right or it may have been wrong, and every hon. Member will make up his or her own mind, but what the Government have done will result in a bitter legacy. I see evidence of that bitter legacy almost every day in my mail bag, and I suspect that the hon. Member for Eastwood and other hon. Members have had the same experience.
The hon. Member for Eastwood says that it is deplorable to suggest that people are talking in terms of class and social divisions, but let me quote one parent who is actively involved with the Merksworth school. He wrote to me the other day:
The main points of the arguments put up by Paisley Grammer School Parents are invalid when you consider what lies behind them. Essentially they do not want their children to mix with those from Shortroods or Ferguslie Park—two areas of deprivation. They also feel that their house values will decline without the magic ethos of Paisley Grammer School nearby. Both arguments are clearly absurd in the context of children's education … We ask for your support in righting this wrong. We are not fighting for house values, nor do we care about the class of our children's friends. We do care about the quality of choice for our children's education.
The hon. Member for Eastwood may say that those are deplorable views, but he cannot deny that they are heartfelt and increasingly widespread, and are encouraged by what the Government have done. That will be the legacy of the Government's handling of this business.

Mr. Michael Forsyth: From what the hon. Gentleman is saying about Paisley, it appears that he believes that the regulations would apply only to Paisley grammer and Merksworth in Paisley. Is he aware that Castlehead and John Neilson high schools in Paisley will also be affected, and if he is, why is he making such intemperate remarks?

Mr. Dewar: As I understand it, the only school in the Paisley area that will he covered by the regulations is Paisley grammer. I have spent the past few minutes pointing out that all schools will be affected by the knock-on effect of the regulations. Is the Minister saying that other schools in Paisley meet the 80 per cent. criterion?

Mr. Forsyth: I am astonished that the hon. Gentleman does not appreciate that. The regulations will affect schools that are subject to rezoning, whose occupancy will be in excess of 80 per cent. More than 20 schools in Strathclyde will be affected, and those in Paisley include Paisley grammar school, Merksworth, Castlehead and John Neilson. Before the hon. Gentleman criticises regulations, he should try to understand what they mean.

Mr. Dewar: The Minister has said something extremely surprising. Is he saying that Merksworth's roll is more than 80 per cent. of its capacity? Is the Minister saying that other schools in Paisley have more than 80 per cent. of their capacity? If they do not, how are they covered?

Mr. Forsyth: If the hon. Gentleman needs me to explain the regulations to him, I will. They are clear. They relate to the schools that will be subject to rezoning or closure, where the occupancy will exceed 80 per cent. He asked me about Merksworth, and he must know that, following the laying of the regulations, Strathclyde made three separate proposals involving Paisley grammar and Merksworth—

Mr. Norman Buchan: What does this have to do with rolls?

Mr. Forsyth: I am explaining it. One proposal involves the closure of Paisley grammar and its merger with Merksworth. The other involves the closure of Merksworth and its merger with Paisley grammar. Where there is rezoning of schools' catchment zones and their occupancy is more than 80 per cent., they will come within the scope of the regulations. In Strathclyde alone, more than 20 cases of closure or rezoning of catchment areas are likely to come before the Secretary of State as a result of the regulations.

Mr. Dewar: The Minister is confirming the fact that this is total chaos and confusion. The regulations refer to
proposals to discontinue any school or any stage of school education in any school or to change the site of any school or to vary the delineated area of any school, where the number of pupils in attendance at any such school is greater than 80% of that school's pupil capacity.
They refer only to a school whose roll is 80 per cent. or more of present capacity. That does not include Merksworth or the John Neilson institute. The Minister is talking arrant nonsense and he should be ashamed of himself.
Of course, the Minister is right to say that not only Paisley grammar school will be affected. Other schools, some as yet unknown, will be affected, including Notre Dame, which is on the borders of my constituency. If it is to be saved on that basis — we do not know — what about the feelings of the parents of pupils who attend Our Lady and St. Francis, which falls just on the wrong side of the 80 per cent. criterion? What will be the impact on St. Thomas Aquinas, whose future was apparently secured by plans to amalgamate it with Notre Dame? I say that because there is bitterness and confusion in my area as well, although it is not so widely publicised. The situation has been made much more difficult.
If the criterion is the popularity of a school, as my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Springburn (Mr. Martin) has said, other criteria might be thought to be equally valuable. Community needs, social considerations, and the deprivation strategy of the education authority should all be taken into account and, I hope, are taken into account by Strathclyde region in reaching those decisions. But the Minister has merely taken one arbitrary criterion of an alleged popularity rating, which he endorses only when it is convenient, as the recent history of the Inner London education authority debate illustrates. If there was a universal validity in that criterion, we would certainly shut down the Scottish Conservative party.
I should like to ask the Minister one or two specific questions. Will he try to clear up the point that we have


been debating about how many schools are affected? If he is saying that schools that do not meet the 80 per cent. criterion are covered by the regulations, the situation is infinitely more complex than any of us, including the education authority, guessed. Are there schools in Grampian, for example, which will be covered by the regulations?
The 10-year rule, in regulation 2(c) (ii), is as follows:
the maximum number of pupils in attendance at the school in any one year in the period of 10 years preceding the proposal".
Is that merely a factor that has to be taken into account when the local authority judges the capacity of a school, with the 80 per cent. count being based on current rolls only? There has been some confusion about that.
Will the Minister say a word or two about the time scale? Assuming that the Government go ahead, will there be a proper consultation process? At least on this occasion, will the Government observe the law as it is applied to education authorities when it comes to consultation? Will the Minister assure us that there will be consultation with other schools in the area that will be affected if the school that has been referred is to be preserved?
We know that Mr. Corbett, the present rector of Paisley, wrote in a report on the building in 1976:
The rooms in the main building were handsome and fitting in 1898, but no longer meet the needs of the 1970s.
Those rooms certainly do not meet the needs of the 1980s, so prima facie there is an argument on whether, if Paisley grammar is to be preserved, it should be preserved in the same building. That will affect other schools in the area. Will we look al the other schools' record and give them a chance to have their say in the decisions that will affect them?
If we are to talk about success, the Minister should read the letter that appeared on 23 February in The Scotsman, which referred to Merksworth school. It stated:
in 1987 Merksworth High School students gained more 'A' passes in Higher grade science subjects than any school in Paisley".
I make that point because Merksworth has been the target of some slighting remarks, particularly by Mr. John MacKay, an ex-Minister responsible for education, who referred to it as a school of
lesser merit … whose academic record has been far fom excellent.
as he attempted to justify what the Government have been doing.
As time is pressing, I shall not deal with the valid criticisms by the Statutory Instruments Committee. The House is well aware of the trenchant criticism that was rightly made of the drafting and the way in which the rules of the House have been observed by a Government in haste, cobbling together an unsatisfactory measure.
This is a shabby little power play, based on political opportunism. It has been almost universally condemned. There has not been a kind word about it in any serious leader column of any paper that I have come across. It is an affront to the normal courtesies of the House. It is an arbitrary use of power. There is in it a strong dash of populism. Most importantly, it is a dangerous educational precedent, which commands no respect. The Government were right in 1981 when they decided that the matter should be left to the education authority, which could weigh up all the complicated and sometimes conflicting

factors. It is a tragedy that we have now rushed to a judgment that will be regretted and reflects no credit on those who are responsible for it.

Mr. Allen Adams: The regulations show a disgraceful contempt for democracy. If any council decides, at any time on any issue, to take a policy decision which the Government do not agree with, the Government will abolish the council, take away its money, restrict its powers or do all three.
Strathclyde regional council may or may not have been correct. However, it is an elected body, it has certain democratic rights and it took a decision. I do not necessarily agree with the decision completely, but the council had the right to take that decision. We are in great danger of obscuring the basic issue. A fundamental threat to democracy is involved. We cannot repeat that point often enough and many people stressed that point before the regulations reached the Floor of the House. This is a very serious matter, quite apart from the educational issues that are involved.
The educational issues are complex and detailed and they are worthy of more than the pseudo-intellectual, petty, pedantic lower middle-class mentality approach shown by the Members for Roxburgh and Berwickshire (Mr. Kirkwood), for Eastwood (Mr. Stewart) and by the Minister. They know nothing of the detailed problems in Paisley. I suggest that they stop visiting my constituency because they are frightening the horses. Only yesterday I had to hide a copy of the Paisley Daily Express because it contained a picture of the hon. Member for Eastwood and we were frightened that the children would see it when they came home from school.
This is a complex issue and no one is completely right or completely wrong. Paisley grammar school is located in the east end of the town and the local residents in the east end of Paisley have a right to a local community school. No one would argue about that. I believe that the grammar school should remain for the local people. The Government cannot get round the simple fact that 50 per cent. of the pupils attending Paisley grammar do not live in the east end of Paisley. Indeed, a substantial number of them do not live in Paisley at all, but come from the area represented by the hon. Member for Eastwood. People talk blithely about a community school. It must be a far-flung community, as it stretches almost 25 miles. Indeed, two pupils come from Kirkintilloch.
The solution is simple and I want to put it on the record. Castlehead high school in the centre of Paisley should have been designated as the town's Catholic school, and it should have been renamed St. Mirren's—[Interruption.] This is very important. The name "St. Mirren's" is synonymous with Paisley and we want to retain that name in Paisley. There is no doubt that St. Ailwood's in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Paisley, South (Mr. Buchan) should be retained because the alternative would mean that children would have to travel two or three miles to the other Catholic school.
The two Catholic schools should be retained in Paisley. Castlehead should be renamed St. Mirren's and should be retained and we should also keep St. Ailwood's. The other obvious solution to the non-denominational problem is to keep Paisley grammer as a community school. We should also keep the John Neilson school in the west end. Many people say that that is not viable because the school has


only 250 pupils. However, those people tend to forget that 150 adults attend the John Neilson. The school is in a deprived area. It can be extended and developed as an educational facility in such an area. Camphill school—another old traditional Paisley name—is in the south of the town and should also be retained.
My two daughters attend the Merksworth high school in the north of the town. I do not like to hear people denounce that school because I am proud of it and proud of what it has done for my children. Let me give an instance of the educational excellence of the school. My youngest daughter Kirsty is 16. She is in her fourth year at the school. Her English class has 20 pupils and two teachers. If some people do not wish to avail themselves of such educational facilities, I do not intend to force them to do so, but I will do so. It is a good school, and it needs to be said that it is a good school.
Apart from that, however, the north end of Paisley is entitled to a centre of educational excellence. In this whole argument, one simple fact has been forgotten: the Government are not giving the council enough money to provide working-class children with a decent education. We want enough money to run the Neilson, the Merksworth, Paisley grammar and the Camphill, and to provide for the children in Fergusley Park and Shotroots the additional teachers and educational back-up that they need. They, more than anyone else, have never had that, and it is high time they did.
Let us not get away from two fundamental issues. One is the denial of democracy by the Government. I repeat this without apology: the minute that any body does anything that the Government do not like, it is abolished. And—this is the second issue—if it is not abolished, it is underfunded. The basic problem is that Strathclyde regional council has not been given enough money to provide the education that children in the west of Scotland deserve and need.

Mr. Nicholas Fairbairn: It is an honour to follow the hon. Member for Paisley, North (Mr. Adams), because he is the hon. Member for whom everyone should have the greatest sympathy. He is the man who backs a decision to keep Paisley grammar open against the decision of Strathclyde regional council, and who must in some way justify the defence against the regulations—which, oddly enough, are prayed against, not by the hon. Gentleman or by any Member of the Labour Opposition, but by the hon. Member for Roxburgh and Berwickshire (Mr. Kirkwood), whose speech defied comprehension. It had neither principle nor purpose; nor did it take sides. I can only imagine that the reason why the hon. Member for Roxburgh and Berwickshire found it necessary to pretend to be both on all sides, and on none—I must say that he was better at pretending to be on none than at pretending to be on all—is that by the end of the week he may belong to a different party, whose name he does not yet know.
It is important to remember that the hon. Gentleman is praying against regulations that would save Notre Dame—or, at least, could do so. The Liberal councillor in Strathclyde region is now claiming that he has already saved it. Here we have the Liberal spoke—I presume that they are called spokes — for education, praying against the very regulations that might do what the

regional council claims it has already done. He is praying against himself—and prayer might be a suitable matter for him this week.
I was impressed when the hon. Member for Glasgow, Garcadden (Mr. Dewar) said that the Opposition care for the quality of choice for children's education. The purpose of the regulations is to give choice. It is no good the hon. Member for Paisley, North, who is in an impossible position, saying that he wants Paisley grammar school, but a different Paisley grammar school, which the children of my hon. Friend the Member for Eastwood (Mr. Stewart) cannot attend. That is apparently the hon. Member's definition of caring about choice. In other words, he would have it that only certain children should be forced to go to that school to change its nature. That is not parental choice.
The hon. Member for Garscadden said that the Opposition believe in parents' choice. The hon. Member for Paisley, North said that there should be no choice and that certain people should be forbidden from going to the school. What is the Opposition's rationale? I understand that they have been attempting to keep New Temple college open.

Mr. Tom Clarke: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. The hon. and learned Gentleman is referring to New Temple college. That is an important matter, but I question its relevance to the debate, especially when there are projected closures in many of our constituencies — unlike the hon. and learned Gentleman's — and many of us are hoping to catch your eye.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I hope that hon. Members will keep to the regulations.

Mr. Fairbairn: That is exactly what I am doing. The regulations centre on the fact that any school or education establishment which is proposed for closure but is 80 per cent. full should be referred to the Secretary of State. The Opposition are saying that that is wrong. They want to rephrase that principle when it comes to a college which is only 10 per cent. full.

Mrs. Ewing: Does the hon. and learned Gentleman believe that the 80 per cent. of capacity consideration is the only criterion on which closure or retention should be decided?

Mr. Fairbairn: No, indeed, I do not believe that 80 per cent. of capacity is the only reason why such a decision should be made. I believe that if there is 80 per cent. of capacity that demonstrates that the school is popular and, in this case, immensely successful, and that very good reasons should be given for closing it, but the Opposition tell us that somewhere which is less than 10 per cent. full should be kept open for doctrinaire reasons.
The Opposition may say that this is a doctrinaire proposal to keep Paisley grammar school open because it happens to have that word "grammar" in its title, although it is a comprehensive school. If that is so, one might equally argue that the reason why Strathclyde regional council decided to close a school was that it was also deceived by the word "grammar" and thought, "Let us get rid of that school."
It is not the Labour Opposition who are praying against this matter, but no doubt they will get on the little go-cart of the Liberals. At least the Liberals have had the courage


to test the matter. It is not a real prayer, but a probing prayer, but no one on the Labour Benches has put his name to it.
We should be clear that parents now have the choice of sending their children to any school. They have chosen to send their children to a school of immense success, which is what we want in Scotland. No local authority should be able, for doctrinaire reasons, to close a school that is popular and successful, unless the Secretary of State is entitled, taking all matters into account, to ensure that that decision is equitable and right.

Mr. Bruce Milian: Naturally the debate has been dominated by Paisley grammar school, because it is the subject of the regulations. My hon. Friend the Member for Paisley, North (Mr. Adams) spoke with obvious detailed knowledge and great passion about Paisley. He made a case that the Minister must answer. However, given the Minister's intervention in the speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Garscadden (Mr. Dewar) I do not believe that we will get an adequate answer or anything else from the Minister. We should not be debating the details of education in Paisley. We have heard the hon. and learned Member for Perth and Kinross (Mr. Fairbairn) pontificating about the issue, but he knows absolutely nothing about it.
It is absurd that such regulations were introduced. Before the Education (Scotland) Act 1981 was introduced, all school closures came to the Secretary of State for approval. At the time of the 1981 legislation, the Opposition believed that there was no need to change that provision — it had worked perfectly well. Why was it changed? At the time, the then Secretary of State said that it was being done to take the Scottish Office off the backs of local education authorities and to allow them to make their own decisions. However, even at that time the Government were urging local authorities to close schools, especially rural ones. They wanted schools to be closed, but they did not want to be associated with such unpopular decisions. For that reason, the 1981 legislation was introduced.
We believed that there was no reason for change, but we argued that if the legislation were changed, it had to be done on a non-discriminatory basis. For that reason we objected to the provisions dealing with denominational schools that gave them certain additional protections unavailable to non-denominational schools.
We also wanted to ensure that parents were properly consulted about any matters that affected their children's education. Under the old system, when the Secretary of State's approval was required for the closure of a school, such consultation took place. No Secretary of State—I did not, and I am certain the same was true of my predecessors—would agree to the closure of a school unless he was sure that there had been consultation with the parents before that closure came forward for approval.
Before 1981, parent consultation used to take place. However, in 1981, the Secretary of State's excuse was that regulations would be introduced to provide for such consultation. That argument does not bear serious examination. The regulations went into considerable detail, and did not just deal with school closures, but other

proposals that could affect particular schools. That is the background against which we are considering the regulations.
If there is a criticism of Strathclyde region in all this—I do not intend to go into detail about Paisley grammar—it is that the authority has evaded the issue of school closures for far too long. It has long been known that Strathclyde had an excess of school places and that sooner or later action would have to be taken to close certain schools. That is common ground on both sides of the House. From 1981 onwards Ministers — including the hon. Member for Eastwood (Mr. Stewart), who was a junior Minister at the Scottish Office—have repeatedly urged Strathclyde and other authorities to close schools and reduce their capacity to correspond more closely to the number of pupils. Strathclyde failed to grasp the nettle early enough, and I do not particularly blame it, because every school closure causes local agitation and concern. Schools with no particular local reputation suddenly become schools of tremendous local reputation when there is a closure proposal. School closures are matters of acute local difficulty for any education authority, so one must not be too critical of Strathclyde.
On the process of consultation, about which Strathclyde has been severely criticised, it is ironic that Strathclyde has done more in the way of consultation than is provided for by the regulations. The irony is that all the consultation so far has been in addition to the statutory obligation to consult that is laid down in the regulations. It is only when one produces a specific proposal that one has to go through the specific process of consultation laid down in the regulations. Until now, all that has happened has been outside the statutory obligations of Strathclyde regional council. It has not been provided for by the regulations introduced by the Government apparently to look after parents' interests. Let us not have any cant, hypocrisy or humbug from the Government about the regulations, because they have not been effective in Strathclyde.
The regulations are about Paisley and about nothing else. The hon. Member for Roxburgh and Berwickshire (Mr. Kirkwood) asked how the 80 per cent. criterion was arrived at. It was arrived at simply to include, and save, Paisley grammar. Incidentally, when a proposal comes before him, the Secretary of State is supposed to behave, if not in a quasi-judicial manner at least objectively. But we know that the decision about Paisley grammar was already made when the Prime Minister wrote to the headmaster and wished the school well for the future. That was a complete abuse of central Government power. The regulations have been introduced cynically for populist reasons relating to Paisley grammar. They are arbitrary in their operation and essentially authoritarian — in line with the Government's authoritarian approach to education authorities and local authorities generally.
Quite apart from all that, the regulations are the worst drafted that I have had the misfortune to read. The Select Committee criticised them not just because of the failure to observe the proper procedure — which may be considered a technical matter, although I consider that it is a matter of considerable importance—but because of the inadequate drafting. If I understood the Minister aright — it was difficult to understand what he was trying to say when he intervened in the speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Garscadden—he was giving an interpretation of the regulations that I believe to be


fundamentally wrong. The regulations do not seem to bear the interpretation that the Minister attempted to put on them, although no doubt he will have an opportunity to clarify that matter later.
Whatever the interpretation of the regulations, the fact is that they work in an arbitrary way. There is no objective consideration involved in the 80 per cent. criterion that has been adopted for the purpose of the regulations. The hon. Member for Eastwood talked about schools being popular with the local population and local parents. There are schools with only 50 per cent. capacity that are as passionately involved with the local community and about which local parents feel just as passionately as any school that has an 80 per cent. capacity. Therefore, considerations of that sort do not bear serious examination.
This is an intervention in a sensitive local issue which, under the terms of the regulations as we have had them before and under the terms of the legislation introduced in 1981, should have been decided by Strathclyde regional council itself. It should not have been the subject of an intervention in this arbitrary and authoritarian way by the Government. That is why we shall vote against the regulations.

Mr. Bob Cryer: I shall be brief, but, as Chairman of the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments, which reported the regulations to the House, I feel that I owe the House an explanation in addition to the printed report. It is worth pointing out that there is a majority of Conservative Members on the Committee. The House lays a duty on the Committee to report measures which, in effect, are an abuse of the procedures of the House. We do not consider the merits of the measures; I shall be brief because I will not go into the merits of these regulations.
The Committee was concerned that the 21-day rule, which applies to measures made under the negative procedure, was breached. No adequate explanation was provided by the Scottish Office. It was asked to provide memoranda and was given a full opportunity to provide information to the Committee. It claimed that it wished to make its attitude known to the Strathclyde regional authority. Of course, it could have written a letter. It did not have to produce regulations or bring them into force. In bringing the regulations into force, the Scottish Office was supposed to notify the Speaker and the Lord Chancellor of the reasons for doing so. It failed to do that and, therefore, was in breach of the Statutory Instruments Act 1946.
I know that the Statutory Instruments Committee is not often much regarded in the House. In fact, by and large it does its work without much attention being paid to it. The Committee was established after an outcry led by a Conservative member of the judiciary. Lord Justice Hewart described the powers that the House was giving to Ministers as the new despotism. There is an obligation on Ministers not to abuse the powers they are given. If they do, it invokes descriptions such as new despotism or elective dictatorship. It is on such occasions that criticisms are directed at the Government because they are abusing the procedures of the House, which are designed to safeguard the powers given to them.
The regulations have the force of law. They are not simply codes of conduct or notes for guidance. The Minister knows that they have the force of the law. That

is why the Committee drew the House's attention to the fact that there is no exact formula for calculating capacity. It is not clear in the regulations who will make judgments on the capacity. The memorandum says that it will be the local authority. However, the Committee looks at the regulations. The people who are carrying out the law as the Government expect them to will be guided by the regulations. They are required to follow the law, yet the law does not say how the capacity is being defined. Therefore, the regulations are defective in drafting. When the defective drafting is coupled with the rush to get the measure through, it is not surprising that the Statutory Instruments Committee reported it to the House.
It does credit to all members on the Committee that they were aware of the shortcomings and agreed to the report. I can say only that, since a Liberal Member moved the prayer, it comes as something of a surprise to note that the place reserved on the Committee for the Member from the Social Democratic party has not been used since the general election, shortly after which the Committee was established.
It is a convention that the Chairman of the Joint Committee is an Opposition Member. In scrutinising the work of the Government, it is therefore a considerable surprise that a member of the SDP has not considered it sufficiently important to participate to a greater extent.
I have not dealt with the merits of the measure, but it is an important issue. I am grateful that Parliament has debated a statutory instrument and the report by the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments. It brings to light the way in which the Government are using procedures with scant regard for the democratic and accountable procedures of the House.

Mr. Foulkes: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. In a debate of such importance, which has been introduced by the hon. Member for Roxburgh and Berwickshire (Mr. Kirkwood) as the spokesman for the Liberal party and in which the principal spokesman for the Opposition in Scotland, the right hon. Member for Glasgow, Govan (Mr. McMillan), a former Secretary of State for Scotland, and the Chairman of the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments my hon. Friend the Member for Bradford, South (Mr. Cryer), have participated, is it right that, when the Secretary of State, who is the Minister responsible, is present, the speech on behalf of the Government should be made by an Under-Secretary of State for Scotland?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: That is not a matter for the Chair.

Mr. Foulkes: Could we not have the regulations—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman is taking up valuable time in this short debate.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Michael Forsyth): We have had an interesting debate, but, having listened to the hon. Member for Roxburgh and Berwickshire (Mr. Kirkwood), I am still puzzled as to whether he was for or against the regulations. I shall do my best to convince him of their worth.
The Government believe that parents have a right to be involved in schools and that the school system should take account of parental preference—

Mr. Foulkes: Rubbish.

Mr. Forsyth: I say to the hon. Member for Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley (Mr. Foulkes), who said "Rubbish", that is not a principle that we have invented; it applies throughout our education system. We differ from Opposition Members because we have done something about the matter and have introduced measures to extend parental choice through the parents' charter, through our proposals which we will bring to the House on school boards and through the regulations.

Mr. Tony Worthington: rose—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I hope that the Minister will have regard to the strictures that I levelled at the House earlier, about the need to keep the debate to the regulations before the House.

Mr. Forsyth: The regulations take account of parental choice in decisions on school closures. I make the point about the background, so that the House is fully aware that this is part of a continuing policy.
Choice may be limited by the constraints of public expenditure. I fully accept the points made by the Opposition Members, that Strathclyde regional council and other educational authorities are right to seek to rationalise their school places and to seek to avoid keeping open half-empty schools, heating buildings and using money which would otherwise be spent on extra books and equipment.

Mr. Buchan: Will the Minister give way?

Mr. Forsyth: If the hon. Gentleman allows me to make progress, I shall try to give way.
The regulations provide that, if closure is approved for a school which is fully utilised, there should be an opportunity for a review. I find it difficult to understand why the hon. Member for Glasgow, Garscadden (Mr. Dewar) should find that so unreasonable. He referred me to a letter which appeared in The Scotsman last month.

Mr. Buchan: Will the Minister give way?

Mr. Forsyth: I shall give way in a moment. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman wishes to comment on that letter.
That letter, dated 1 February, referred to the regulations and was from a Mr. Alex Wood. I believe that he will have some knowledge of the gentleman, who was the first Labour leader of Edinburgh district council and a former pupil of Paisley grammar school. He was critical of Paisley grammar. It was to be damned because it indulged in
Rugby in an overwhelmingly football-playing area, the school motto in Latin, `Disce Puer Aut Abi' (Work, Boy or get out!) hanging over the school war-memorial; a rigidly enforced and distinctive school uniform; a prefect system; and a constant wallowing in the school's 400-year history".
[Interruption.] I am asked whether Mr. Wood is for it or against it. At the beginning of the letter, referring to Strathclyde's closure programme, he said:
It had, however, one plus-point. It threatened the closure of several of the magnet schools, archaic educational establishments which sought to maintain their old selective status in the comprehensive epoch and which, successfully, in this Parents' Charter age, drew countless students from local comprehensives in working class areas.
That is the really damning thing to Mr. Wood and for the Labour party and many people on Strathclyde region.
The hon. Member for Garscadden may well make a lot of noise, but the fact is that he is saddled with a party that is opposed to those schools that are able to attract parents under the parents' charter.

Mr. Buchan: I shall try to restrain my temper at that misuse of the time of the House. The hon. Gentleman referred to the crucial point of the 80 per cent. Will he explain what is meant by 80 per cent.? Clearly, an hour ago he did not know. The hon. Gentleman has again referred to the schools being fully utilised. What does he mean? Does he mean in any year in the past 10 years or does he mean now? Is it 80 per cent. as calculated by the local authority in terms of the capacity of the rooms, or can a school be fully utilised even if it is not at the 80 per cent. level, by using it also as a community school? Can the hon. Gentleman explain even that for us, because that element was grossly defective in the regulations?

Mr. Forsyth: Of course I shall try to help the hon. Gentleman. I do not think that it is a misuse of the time of the House for me to point out that a former Paisley grammar school boy, a leading figure in the Labour party — [Interruption.] I take it that Labour Members now wish to repudiate the first Labour leader of Edinburgh district council. That is a matter for them. I suspect that some of the thinking behind Mr. Wood's letter is behind the proposals in Strathclyde.
I should be happy to explain the point about 80 per cent. capacity. It is very straightforward. Whether a school has 80 per cent. occupancy will be a matter to be determined by the education authority. Under these regulations, if the education authority thinks that the school is 80 per cent. full or more, it is required to present to my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State any proposal for closure or any proposal to alter the catchment zone of that school. It is clearly spelt out — [Interruption.] If hon. Members will listen, they will know what the regulations are about and they can decide whether they are for or against them. I suggest that that is the proper way to go forward.
If any school meets the 80 per cent. capacity rule, a proposal for closure or for alteration of the catchment zone will have to be referred to my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State. That will mean in Paisley that the matter of the Castlehead and John Neilson schools, may have to be referred — [HON MEMBERS: "May?"]—will have to be referred — [HON. MEMBERS: "Why?"]—I say "may" because I am relying for my information on Strathclyde regional council. The proposal is to close the John Neilson school. That will result in a change in the delineated area of a school—Castlehead school—with a pupil population exceeding 80 per cent. of the capacity. So it will come to my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State. For all those hon. Gentlemen on the Opposition Benches who said that this was about one school in Paisley, it is true of the Brediland primary school, Paisley of South primary school, Paisley, of Bushes primary school, Paisley, and of a large number of schools in Strathclyde. Opposition Members have based their opposition to these regulations on a reading of them which clearly shows that they did not understand what the regulations were intended to achieve.

Mr. Buchan: If the Minister claims, as he did just now, that Castlehead, because of the shift of roll, will be brought within the 80 per cent., does he base this on the present roll


or does he base it on the roll of any of the past 10 years—since that is part of the regulations? If it is on the present roll, how does he explain the non-inclusion in his remarks of John Neilson?

Mr. Forsyth: All I can say to the hon. Gentleman is that he needs to sit down and study the regulations. They are very clear. If there is a proposal to alter the catchment area of a school or to close a school with more than 80 per cent. capacity, it has to come to my right hon. and learned Friend.
Hon. Gentlemen must allow me to make progress, so that I can try to answer the points made in the debate.

Mr. Buchan: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Is it in order to adjourn the debate so that the Minister can be further advised by the Box over there?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Mr. Forsyth.

Mr. Forsyth: What is in order is to debate these regulations. If the hon. Gentleman will not take the time to study the regulations, he will find himself at a disadvantage in debate.
I was asked why the regulations came into force immediately. They were made on 26 January. We were aware that Strathclyde council would be meeting on 3 and 12 February, and we were anxious to avoid any question of the retrospective use of these powers. We believed that it was important that Strathclyde should be in no doubt that the regulations would hear on any decisions which it was to take at these meetings.
I was asked why the regulations came into force before being laid. It is certainly true that they came into force at midnight and that they were laid 16 hours later, at 4 pm, as the hon. Member for Bradford, South (Mr. Cryer) said. The Joint Committee acknowledged that the procedure required for this circumstance in section 4 of the Statutory Instruments Act 1946 was followed, in that Mr. Speaker and the Lord Chancellor were notified by letter that regulations had come into operation ahead of being laid. So the Government do not accept that there has been a failure to comply with the 1946 Act.
Another criticism was that the regulations do not make it clear who is responsible for determining capacity. It was a point made by the hon. Gentleman the Member for Roxburgh and Berwickshire in opening the debate. Section 22(b) of the Education (Scotland) Act 1980 and the context of schedule 2 to the principal regulations make it quite clear that the duty rests with education authorities to decide which proposals to put to the Secretary of State for his consent.
I say to the hon. Member for Roxburgh and Berwickshire, who answered my intervention in his speech about the existing regulations—which are in respect of decisions which deem it necessary for the Secretary of State to decide, for example, whether a school is five or 10 miles distant — that they do not specify who is to take the decision on the five or 10 miles. The hon. Gentleman said that that was not a precedent. It was, he said, easy to decide whether a school was five or 10 miles distant. He has obviously never had that sort of case in his constituency, because there is considerable argument about the precise route followed by the child, and so on.
The regulations do not say who is to decide that, but they clearly point, because of their context, to the education authority. These regulations are no different in that respect.

Mr. Worthington: rose—

Mr. Forsyth: There have been a number of questions about the capacity of the school. Actual capacity depends on the curriculum, the teaching methods and upper limits on class sizes which may be negotiated from time to time. The fact that there is no unchanging yardstick does not mean that no measurement can be made.

Mr. Worthington: If the way in which this has been done is even-handed, why did the Minister see representatives of Paisley grammar school twice but refuse to meet representatives of Merksworth high school?

Mr. Forsyth: What is even-handed is that the regulations give Paisley grammar school and other schools an opportunity for their cases to be reviewed by my right hon. and learned Friend. By opposing these regulations, Labour Members are preventing parents from being able to have that review.
It being one and a half hours after the commencement of proceedings on the motion, MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER put the Question, pursuant to order [26 February].
The House proceeded to a Division:

Mr. Dick Douglas(seated and covered): On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I understand that one's vote must go with one's voice, and vice versa. I understand that the hon. Member for Roxburgh and Berwickshire (Mr. Kirkwood) will not vote in the Division. I ask for your comment, Mr. Deputy Speaker, on that posture.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Harold Walker): The House must assume that the hon. Gentleman has been influenced by the course of the debate. It may be unusual, but it can happen.

The House having divided: Ayes 173, Noes 199.

Division No. 199]
[12.20 am


AYES


Adams, Allen (Paisley N)
Cousins, Jim


Allen, Graham
Cryer, Bob


Anderson, Donald
Cummings, John


Archer, Rt Hon Peter
Dalyell, Tam


Armstrong, Hilary
Darling, Alistair


Barron, Kevin
Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)


Battle, John
Davis, Terry (B'ham Hodge H'l)


Beckett, Margaret
Dewar, Donald


Benn, Rt Hon Tony
Dixon, Don


Bermingham, Gerald
Dobson, Frank


Bidwell, Sydney
Doran, Frank


Blair, Tony
Douglas, Dick


Blunkett, David
Duffy, A. E. P.


Boateng, Paul
Dunnachie, Jimmy


Boyes, Roland
Eadie, Alexander


Bradley, Keith
Eastham, Ken


Bray, Dr Jeremy
Evans, John (St Helens N)


Brown, Gordon (D'mline E)
Ewing, Harry (Falkirk E)


Brown, Nicholas (Newcastle E)
Ewing, Mrs Margaret (Moray)


Brown, Ron (Edinburgh Leith)
Fatchett, Derek


Buchan, Norman
Field, Frank (Birkenhead)


Buckley, George J.
Fields, Terry (L'pool B G'n)


Caborn, Richard
Fisher, Mark


Campbell, Ron (Blyth Valley)
Flannery, Martin


Clark, Dr David (S Shields)
Flynn, Paul


Clarke, Tom (Monklands W)
Foot, Rt Hon Michael


Clay, Bob
Foster, Derek


Clelland, David
Foulkes, George


Clwyd, Mrs Ann
Fyfe, Maria


Cohen, Harry
Galbraith, Sam


Cook, Frank (Stockton N)
Garrett, John (Norwich South)


Cook, Robin (Livingston)
Garrett, Ted (Wallsend)


Corbett, Robin
Godman, Dr Norman A.


Corbyn, Jeremy
Golding, Mrs Llin






Graham, Thomas
Morley, Elliott


Grant, Bernie (Tottenham)
Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)


Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)
Mowlam, Marjorie


Grocott, Bruce
Mullin, Chris


Hardy, Peter
Murphy, Paul


Harman, Ms Harriet
Nellist, Dave


Haynes, Frank
O'Brien, William


Healey, Rt Hon Denis
O'Neill, Martin


Henderson, Doug
Patchett, Terry


Hinchliffe, David
Pike, Peter L.


Hogg, N. (C'nauld &amp; Kilsyth)
Powell, Ray (Ogmore)


Home Robertson, John
Prescott, John


Hood, Jimmy
Primarolo, Dawn


Howarth, George (Knowsley N)
Quin, Ms Joyce


Hughes, John (Coventry NE)
Randall, Stuart


Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)
Redmond, Martin


Hughes, Roy (Newport E)
Rees, Rt Hon Merlyn


Hughes, Sean (Knowsley S)
Richardson, Jo


Illsley, Eric
Robertson, George


Janner, Greville
Robinson, Geoffrey


John, Brynmor
Rogers, Allan


Jones, Barry (Alyn &amp; Deeside)
Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)


Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S W)
Rowlands, Ted


Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald
Ruddock, Joan


Lambie, David
Sheerman, Barry


Lamond, James
Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert


Leadbitter, Ted
Shore, Rt Hon Peter


Leighton, Ron
Short, Clare


Litherland, Robert
Skinner, Dennis


Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)
Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)


Lofthouse, Geoffrey
Smith, C. (Isl'ton &amp; F'bury)


McAllion, John
Soley, Clive


McAvoy, Thomas
Spearing, Nigel


McCartney, Ian
Steinberg, Gerry


Macdonald, Calum A.
Stott, Roger


McFall, John
Strang, Gavin


McKay, Allen (Barnsley West)
Straw, Jack


McKelvey, William
Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)


McLeish, Henry
Thompson, Jack (Wansbeck)


McNamara, Kevin
Turner, Dennis


McWilliam, John
Wall, Pat


Madden, Max
Walley, Joan


Mahon, Mrs Alice
Wardell, Gareth (Gower)


Marshall, David (Shettleston)
Wareing, Robert N.


Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)
Williams, Alan W. (Carm'then)


Martin, Michael J. (Springburn)
Wilson, Brian


Martlew, Eric
Winnick, David


Maxton, John
Wise, Mrs Audrey


Meacher, Michael
Worthington, Tony


Meale, Alan
Young, David (Bolton SE)


Michael, Alun



Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)
Tellers for the Ayes:


Millan, Rt Hon Bruce
Mr. Adam Ingram and


Mitchell, Austin (G't Grimsby)
Mr. Nigel Griffiths.


Moonie, Dr Lewis



NOES


Adley, Robert
Bottomley, Mrs Virginia


Alexander, Richard
Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich)


Alison, Rt Hon Michael
Bowis, John


Allason, Rupert
Braine, Rt Hon Sir Bernard


Amess, David
Brazier, Julian


Amos, Alan
Bright, Graham


Arbuthnot, James
Brown, Michael (Brigg &amp; Cl't's)


Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)
Bruce, Ian (Dorset South)


Arnold, Tom (Hazel Grove)
Buchanan-Smith, Rt Hon Alick


Ashby, David
Buck, Sir Antony


Aspinwall, Jack
Budgen, Nicholas


Atkins, Robert
Burns, Simon


Baker, Rt Hon K. (Mole Valley)
Burt, Alistair


Baker, Nicholas (Dorset N)
Butcher, John


Baldry, Tony
Butler, Chris


Beaumont-Dark, Anthony
Butterfill, John


Bellingham, Henry
Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)


Bendall, Vivian
Carttiss, Michael


Bennett, Nicholas (Pembroke)
Cash, William


Benyon, W.
Channon, Rt Hon Paul


Blackburn, Dr John G.
Chope, Christopher


Bonsor, Sir Nicholas
Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)


Boscawen, Hon Robert
Clark, Sir W. (Croydon S)





Conway, Derek
Latham, Michael


Coombs, Simon (Swindon)
Leigh, Edward (Gainsbor'gh)


Cope, John
Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark


Currie, Mrs Edwina
Lilley, Peter


Curry, David
Lord, Michael


Davies, Q. (Stamf'd &amp; Spald'g)
Luce, Rt Hon Richard


Davis, David (Boothferry)
Macfarlane, Sir Neil


Day, Stephen
MacGregor, Rt Hon John


Dickens, Geoffrey
MacKay, Andrew (E Berkshire)


Dorrell, Stephen
Maclean, David


Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James
McLoughlin, Patrick


Dover, Den
McNair-Wilson, M. (Newbury)


Dunn, Bob
McNair-Wilson, P. (New Forest)


Durant, Tony
Madel, David


Evennett, David
Malins, Humfrey


Fairbairn, Nicholas
Mans, Keith


Fallon, Michael
Maples, John


Farr, Sir John
Marland, Paul


Favell, Tony
Marshall, John (Hendon S)


Fenner, Dame Peggy
Marshall, Michael (Arundel)


Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)
Martin, David (Portsmouth S)


Forman, Nigel
Maude, Hon Francis


Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)
Mayhew, Rt Hon Sir Patrick


Forth, Eric
Meyer, Sir Anthony


Freeman, Roger
Miller, Hal


French, Douglas
Mills, Iain


Gale, Roger
Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)


Garel-Jones, Tristan
Mitchell, David (Hants NW)


Gill, Christopher
Moate, Roger


Goodhart, Sir Philip
Monro, Sir Hector


Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles
Montgomery, Sir Fergus


Gow, Ian
Morrison, Hon Sir Charles


Gower, Sir Raymond
Moss, Malcolm


Greenway, John (Ryedale)
Neubert, Michael


Gregory, Conal
Paice, James


Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth N)
Patnick, Irvine


Grist, Ian
Rifkind, Rt Hon Malcolm


Ground, Patrick
Ryder, Richard


Grylls, Michael
Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)


Hamilton, Hon Archie (Epsom)
Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)


Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)
Stanbrook, Ivor


Hanley, Jeremy
Stern, Michael


Hannam, John
Stevens, Lewis


Hargreaves, A. (B'ham H'll Gr')
Stewart, Allan (Eastwood)


Hargreaves, Ken (Hyndburn)
Stewart, Andy (Sherwood)


Harris, David
Stewart, Ian (Hertfordshire N)


Haselhurst, Alan
Stradling Thomas, Sir John


Hayes, Jerry
Sumberg, David


Hayhoe, Rt Hon Sir Barney
Summerson, Hugo


Heathcoat-Amory, David
Taylor, Ian (Esher)


Heddle, John
Taylor, John M (Solihull)


Hicks, Robert (Cornwall SE)
Taylor, Teddy (S'end E)


Hind, Kenneth
Temple-Morris, Peter


Hogg, Hon Douglas (Gr'th'm)
Thompson, D. (Calder Valley)


Holt, Richard
Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)


Hordern, Sir Peter
Thorne, Neil


Howard, Michael
Thurnham, Peter


Howarth, G. (Cannock &amp; B'wd)
Townend, John (Bridlington)


Howell, Rt Hon David (G'dford)
Trippier, David


Hughes, Robert G. (Harrow W)
Twinn, Dr Ian


Hunt, David (Wirral W)
Waddington, Rt Hon David


Hunt, John (Ravensbourne)
Walden, George


Hurd, Rt Hon Douglas
Walker, Bill (T'side North)


Irvine, Michael
Waller, Gary


Jack, Michael
Ward, John


Jackson, Robert
Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)


Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey
Watts, John


Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)
Wheeler, John


Jones, Robert B (Herts W)
Widdecombe, Ann


Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine
Wiggin, Jerry


Key, Robert
Wilkinson, John


King, Roger (B'ham N'thfield)
Wilshire, David


Kirkhope, Timothy
Wood, Timothy


Knapman, Roger
Yeo, Tim


Knight, Dame Jill (Edgbaston)



Knowles, Michael
Tellers for the Noes:


Knox, David
Mr. David Lightbown and


Lamont, Rt Hon Norman
Mr. Alan Howarth.


Lang, Ian

Question accordingly negatived.

Mr. Buchan: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I should like some guidance and advice from you over what has just happened. The prayer was tabled by Liberal Members of Parliament. In the event, they decided not to take part in the vote that followed the prayer. Is that customary, is it precedented, is it democratic and is it fair?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I dealt with this point of order during the Division. I see no reason to add anything to the ruling that I gave on that occasion.

Mr. Foulkes: Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Is it in order to ask you to confirm that, if the alliance Members had voted with the Opposition, the prayer would have been approved?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: It is not for me to indulge in hypotheses.

Mr. John Home Robertson: Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Might this incident be remembered in future as "Holy Archy's Prayer"?

Orders of the Day — PETITION

A47 (Great Yarmouth)

Mr. Michael Carttiss: I beg leave to present a petition on behalf of 19,976 residents and visitors to my constituency of Great Yarmouth and to the constituency of Mid-Norfolk, represented here tonight by my hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Norfolk (Mr. Ryder). I quote from the prayer:
Wherefore your petitioners pray that your honourable House acknowledges the urgent need to improve the A47 highway between Great Yarmouth and Acle, and asks the Secretary of State for Transport to include a dual carriageway scheme for this length of highway in the Government's roads programme at the earliest opportunity.
The tragic death yesterday of an 18-year-old constituent of my hon. Friend the Member for Waveney (Mr. Porter)—killed in a head-on crash with a family of four who were seriously injured and who are represented tonight by my hon. Friend the Member for Norwich, North (Mr. Thompson), who supports the petition — lends poignancy to the petition, because it is the sixth fatality on the eight-mile road between Acle and Great Yarmouth during the past three years, and the 40th personal injury accident since 1984.
The petition, which I wholeheartedly support, has been organised in recent weeks by Great Yarmouth borough council and is presented tonight in the furtherance of the economic, commercial and industrial development of Great Yarmouth as a holiday resort, a port and an area of above average unemployment.
To lie upon the Table.

Schools Outreach Project

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Dorrell.]

Mr. Nicholas Baker: I am most grateful for the opportunity to draw the attention of the House to the works of Schools Outreach. It fulfils a role which, so far as I am aware, is unique. It plugs a gap in preventive youth care that desperately needs to be filled. I am glad that my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Education and Science is to answer the debate, because his Department has shown interest in and provided support for the project. I want that interest and support to be extended, and I look forward with great interest to what he will say.
My hon. Friends the Members for Bolton, North-East (Mr. Thurnham), for Dudley, West (Dr. Blackburn) and for Milton Keynes (Mr. Benyon) will seek to catch your eye, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and they will do so with my full consent and encouragement. I have the support of my hon. Friends the Members for Ealing, North (Mr. Greenway) and for Bromsgrove (Mr. Miller) and many hon. Members on both sides of the House, especially those who represent constituencies in and around Birmingham. I also have the support of the Second Church Estates Commissioner, my right hon. Friend the Member for Selby (Mr. Alison).
Schools Outreach is a charity that was established in 1973 to support and encourage the work that has been done for many years, and continues to be done, by Gordon Bailey in preventive care among schoolchildren. Its aims are to train, support and sustain preventive care workers, who will establish child-centred, long-term relationships with young people in schools; to encourage young people to recognise the need for values and responsibilities; to help young people to acknowledge, accept and achieve their personal, social, moral and spiritual potential; to stimulate their wisdom in every aspect of life, and thereby prevent problems that would otherwise occur; and to present them with a programme that will offer a whole, balanced concept of the human personality. That is achieved in co-operation with teachers and youth workers, by participating in creating links between schools and their surrounding communities and by concentrating on enhancing links between schools and the parents of their pupils. In summary, it seeks to help young people to grow into mature, whole, fulfilled and responsible citizens.
The project arose from the work and experience of Gordon Bailey. While working as a volunteer youth worker at a youth centre in south-east Lancashire in the mid-1950s he became aware of the serious problems that some young people developed: involvement in crime, sexually transmitted diseases, alcohol and drug abuse, truancy and alienation from school and community. Gordon Bailey was convinced that most, if not all, of those problems were preventable. His first success was with the problems of a 15-year-old boy whose parents had thrown him out of his home.
The conflict had arisen because of the boy's low sense of self-worth, combined with his parents' unrealistic expectations. Mr. Bailey was able to achieve a reconciliation between boy and parent. One month later, the boy's headmaster reported that, from being an extremely disruptive child who had been on the verge of expulsion from school, he had become responsible, and

could Mr. Bailey do the same for the rest of the fourth-year pupils at the school? Mr. Bailey continued to visit the school for one full day every week, and by working during class periods with groups of pupils he found that he was able to establish and build developing relationships with the pupils.
By the early 1960s Mr. Bailey was able to see positive effects in the lives of the children. He had been able to create a classroom environment, made easier by his unofficial and informal approaches, within which children found themselves willing and able to discover the wisdom of becoming interested in and committed to their personal whole health and well-being. The core of the work is that it is child-centred and aimed at the development of the child's wisdom, so that problems that would threaten their well-being can be prevented.
Word of mouth commendations of Mr. Bailey's work resulted in such pressure on him to extend his work that in 1960 he resigned from his job as a television technician with Independent Television and entered full-time preventive care. Working with children in junior and secondary schools, he rediscovered the concept of getting alongside a child very early, watching for any sign of a risk to the health and well-being of the child, maintaining involvement with pastoral teaching staff and local child care agencies, the parents and family of a child at risk, and co-operating with and complementing all forms of child care. In the late 1960s, the needs of people in inner cities came to Mr. Bailey's attention, and in 1972, at the invitation of several head teachers, he and his wife and their four children moved to Birmingham. In the following year, the Schools Outreach project was established as a charity.
Mr. Bailey became linked informally with several schools, the local education authority and Winson Green prison in Birmingham. The link with the prisoners afforded an opportunity to assess the value of his work. Linked with 10 per cent. of the city's schools, as might have been expected, he came across several young boys from the schools in which he worked who passed through the prison on remand for assessment on their way through the penal system. Among the boys who were prison residents, he met about 10 per cent. from the schools he knew. By the late 1970s, however, he was no longer meeting in prison any former pupils from the schools where he had worked.
The aims of Mr. Bailey's classroom programme have been, first, to offer friendship to children; secondly, to encourage them to develop a sense of self-worth; thirdly, to take them through a programme of learning that offers each child the opportunity to develop a sense of responsibility towards his own and other people's health and well-being; and, fourthly, to prepare each child for adulthood and parentcraft. That is done by open as well as private discussion.
Preventive care, which Mr. Bailey and his team provide, is what most parents are able to provide for their own children, but in the inner cities of Britain today the environment is hostile. Good teachers and parents are often frustrated by the lack of time in which to establish and build deep friendships with their children. Lack of time results from distractions such as work, other children, the need for crisis management, and so on. I do not propose to say more about the responsibility of parents, except to observe that both the Secretary of State for Education and Science and the Secretary of State for the


Home Department have recently made excellent speeches acknowledging the urgent need for positive parenthood to prevent problems that Schools Outreach is trying to prevent. Sadly, however, the need for preventive care provided by schools to inner-city children remains urgent.
A pilot scheme has been established in the west midlands. It is encouraging that it has the support of so many hon. Members, on a cross-party basis. Eight workers are undergoing training in the skills that Gordon Bailey has developed over the past 20 years. Their basic training will end early in May. Between May and September, they will establish relationships with teachers and those who work in child care agencies. They will begin their full-time, long-term work with schoolchildren in September.
Four of the eight workers are male, and four are female. Four were teachers, and between them the British, Afro-Caribbean and Asian communities are represented. All eight are committed to community based, child-centred preventive care on a long-term basis. A headmaster who was appointed in 1974 to the school in Birmingham where Gordon Bailey was working has taken early retirement to direct the training.
It is difficult to evaluate any form of preventive care. However, there will be an independent evaluation of the Schools Outreach pilot scheme which will result in a report which should be completed and available in 1991.
A number of companies from commerce and industry are helping to fund the project. Groups of people, particularly parents who care about their children's futures, are working together in different places to raise money for the project. The Schools Outreach programme needs funds, and this is clearly an area in which a partnership between the private and public sectors is required. The private sector has already committed £200,000, and more is being sought. The total cost of the project over three years will be more than £500,000.
An application for funding for the pilot scheme has been considered by my hon. Friend the Minister. He turned the application down on its face value, but suggested that revised proposals could be made and that, on certain conditions, the Department would be willing to provide £150,000 towards the cost of the pilot scheme. I welcome what my hon. Friend has been able to offer, but I hope that there will be a continuing and increasingly positive approach to the project. I appreciate that the scheme does not fit neatly into the boundaries set by the Department's responsibilities, but that makes it all the more urgent that the project should receive support from central and local government.
I understand that the Department is concerned about what will happen after the pilot scheme ends. Such concerns must exist about any pilot scheme. This pilot scheme will have to prove itself, and the Outreach team recognises that. To object, as the Department did, that Schools Outreach has not spelt out clearly how effective relationships could be established between preventive care teachers and local authority welfare agents, suggests to me that the Department has not examined adequately the way in which Gordon Bailey and his small team have been working.
I appreciate that departmental money for new projects must be limited, but I urge my hon. Friend the Minister to reconsider the funding of this pilot scheme. In doing so, I do not want to appear unappreciative of the support that the Department has already promised. Schools Outreach has been tackling problems that affect young people;

problems which established institutions are failing to tackle and with which parents feel helpless to deal. Many of us have put forward remedies in the House to tackle the problems of alienation, truancy and irresponsibility among young people that are manifest at football grounds, in inner cities, in classrooms and elsewhere. Schools Outreach is doing something about those problems.
I want to ask my hon. Friend the Minister some difficult questions. What does a teenage girl's pregnancy cost the community? How much does an abortion for a teenage girl cost? How much does it cost to keep young criminals in secure accommodation? How much does it cost to treat a drug addict? How much does it cost to treat an AIDS victim? What are the costs of legal aid for a young criminal going through the law courts? No doubt my hon. Friend will tell me that the costs involved are difficut to measure precisely, but it must undoubtedly be the case that for every pound spent on preventive care of the kind practised by Schools Outreach, hundreds, if not thousands, of pounds would be saved by the work that is carried out.
I invite my hon. Friend the Minister to try a simple cost-benefit analysis of that approach. If he tries that, he will want to increase his support for this worthwhile, excellent and unique project. I thank my hon. Friend for his support so far and invite him, for the sake of our young people, to do even more in future than he has been able to do so far.

Mr. W. Benyon: I am glad that my hon. Friend the Member for Dorset, North (Mr. Baker) managed to obtain this debate. Outreach is a wonderful organisation, and there is now sufficient proof of what it is doing to ensure its success.
I wish to make only two points in the short time available to me. First, let me reiterate what I said to my hon. Friend the Minister in a letter in June last year about the partnership aspect. If we are to ask the private sector to help in matters such as this, we must gear up Government support or everyone will lose heart. The amount of fund-raising has been remarkable, and a great success, but if the Government do not come in behind it, all that will be lost.
Secondly—time is far more important—I emphasise to my hon. Friend that every piece of legislation since the war has been detrimental to the family, and to the upbringing of young people in this country. The divorce laws, the fiscal operations, the social security regulations — all, in a sense, have been directed against young people's managing to make a success of their lives and having happy, stable family relationships.
I warmly welcome, as did my hon. Friend the Member for Dorset, North, the speeches that have been made recently about the problem. If the Government mean what they say, this is the moment for them to put their money where their mouth is. I hope that the debate about this wonderful organisation, which is doing such good work, will be successful.

Dr. John G. Blackburn: The House pays a warm and generous tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Dorset, North (Mr. Baker) for raising this issue. I, too, have only two small points to make but they are important, and saturated with sincerity.
First, I have had the privilege of knowing Gordon Bailey for 35 years. I also know the work that he has undertaken, particularly in the west midlands, adjacent to my constituency. It is about time that we as a House determined that the quality of education also has a great bearing on moral teaching, and on the safeguards that will bring people up into responsible youth and manhood.
I recommend my hon. Friend the Minister to view the case with the greatest possible charity. No, not charity; we are looking for justice, and we are looking for a figure at least to match that of the private sector. It is in that spirit that — because of my constituency involvement with Schools Outreach, and because of the work that it is doing — I commend it warmly to my hon. Friend.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Education and Science (Mr. Bob Dunn): The House is most grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Dorset, North (Mr. Baker) for raising this matter tonight. I listened with great interest to his speech, as well as to the comments of my hon. Friends the Members for Milton Keynes (Mr. Benyon) and for Dudley, West (Dr. Blackburn).
The House will also note the presence in the Chamber of my right hon. Friend the Member for Selby (Mr. Alison) and my hon. Friends the Members for Bromsgrove (Mr. Miller) and for Loughborough (Mr. Dorrell). They have come to listen to the discussion of an important topic which is well worthy of debate in the House.
The excellent work of Mr. Gordon Bailey and his Schools Outreach preventive care project has been ably described by my hon. Friend the Member for Dorset, North. He is one of many hon. Members on both sides of the House who have been persuaded by the merits of Mr. Bailey's work. I am well aware of that, not least because of the considerable number of letters received by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and myself, both from hon. Members and from their noble Lordships.
The letters that we have received have given weighty support to the proposals from Mr. Bailey for my Department to provide funding for his preventive care project. We have also received a large number of letters from teachers, head teachers and others who have seen at first hand the value of the work carried out by Mr. Bailey, and have argued strongly for its replication in other schools. We do not need persuading, therefore, of the strength of feeling of those who know Mr. Bailey and are aware of his work in schools and elsewhere.
Since we first made contact with Mr. Bailey and learned of his activities, both my right hon. Friend and I have been impressed with his level of commitment and of the possible long-term benefits that might accrue from the placement of preventive care workers in schools. We have therefore given him every encouragement to develop proposals which provide the opportunity to judge the success of preventive care workers in influencing young people and helping them to tackle the various difficulties and temptations that they encounter in adolescence.
As my hon. Friend is aware, the intention of the Schools Outreach preventive care project is to place a preventive care worker in a school or a number of schools. Through their establishment of long-term relationships with young people, the care workers aim to discourage the

development of problems in relation to crime—including vandalism — truancy, drug and alcohol abuse, family disintegration and child abuse.
The prime purpose of the work is to promote the physical and mental health and emotional well-being of young people, which will act as a basis for responsible and fulfilled citizenship in adult life. This is achieved through a blend of work in the classroom with groups of pupils, one-to-one counselling of individual pupils, and involvement in extra-curricular activities organised within the school. It is also intended that preventive care workers will seek, through links with parents, families, local youth centres and other local care agencies, to encourage strong ties between schools and the surrounding community. Over a period, it is hoped that care workers will be able to earn the respect and affection of the children, as well as the trust of parents and staff, helping each child towards his role as a worthwhile member of society.
Preventive care workers aim to supplement, but not be a substitute for, the efforts of parents and the teaching profession, and help in particular where either the home or the school is unable for whatever reason to provide the necessary support a child requires. They will not assume the responsibilities of existing agencies such as educational welfare services the National Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children, educational psychologists and others. Their role rather will be a long-term one in helping the development of young people and preventing their future involvement in a range of destructive activities, both to themselves and to society at large.
Those aims are noble and worthy enough, but they bring with them the prospect of saving the public purse many thousands of pounds. The social and personal costs of a young person going off the rails during adolescence are of course enormous if that should lead to a lifestyle of delinquency, crime, or physical self-destruction through alcohol or drug abuse. The financial costs to society are also considerable. As Mr. Bailey has rightly pointed out in submitting his proposal for Government funding, if every preventive care worker succeeds in discouraging just one child from becoming involved in crime, or drug abuse, the financial savings to the taxpayer and to both local and central Government could be immense.
As my hon. Friends are aware, there is something of a history to the proposals from Mr. Bailey for Government funding of his work. I think that it is worth explaining the background. Mr. Bailey first submitted an application to the Department for funding in April 1986 for a two-year pilot project based in the west midlands. The cost of the proposal amounted to £254,000. That was intended to cover the establishment of an administrative and training headquarters for the pilot project, as well as covering the cost of employing and training preventive care workers to be deployed in 25 schools.
Given the pressure on the resources available to the Department, Mr. Bailey subsequently submitted a revised application with the cost scaled down to a total of £199,000, but despite the considerable sympathy which both I and my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State had for the aims of the proposals, the pressure on resources meant that we could not fund the project at that time. However, in writing to Mr. Bailey to explain our decision I made it clear that it was based primarily on financial considerations. He was therefore invited to resubmit an application for funding, beginning in the financial year 1988–89.
Given that the Department had not been able to find resources for the project in 1987, Mr. Bailey had to seek alternative funding from elsewhere if his project was to make a start that year. It is a testimony to his personal commitment and powers of persuasion that he was able to obtain funding from private sources amounting to more than £90,000 in 1987–88. He has also obtained private funding for subsequent years amounting to a further £80,000.
Following discussions with DES officials, a revised application for Government funding was submitted by Mr. Bailey in August 1987. On that occasion the request was for a total of £566,000 to cover the final three years of a four-year pilot project. This application coincided with one from Mr. Bailey to the Department of Trade and Industry for funding of two preventive care workers in the Handsworth area of Birmingham as part of the inner cities programme. Having taken advice from my Department on the application, the Department of Trade and Industry were able to provide a total of £32,000 for the work proposed in Handsworth.
A decision on the revised proposal for DES funding was finally issued in December last year. Consideration of the proposal, and indeed the original application, took much longer than I would have wished. I assure my hon. Friends that the prime reason on both occasions was the need to ensure that they received detailed and thorough consideration within the Department.
As I am sure my hon. Friends will appreciate, the competition for resources within my Department has been particularly fierce of late, especially given the range of new initiatives resulting from the proposals contained in our Education Reform Bill. Many worthwhile proposals have been casualties of that competition. We have nevertheless been able to offer funding for the preventive care project, although at a reduced level and subject to certain conditions. We have been able to offer Mr. Bailey a total of £150,000 funding over three years. That is subject to certain conditions that we feel bound to impose, primarily to ensure that public money is well spent.
The most important condition that we have had to impose is that Mr. Bailey should obtain a guarantee from a local authority that it would be prepared to make a financial commitment to the project over the three-year pilot period. The authority would also need to be willing—subject to a favourable evaluation of the project—to continue to provide finance at the level supported during

the pilot period to ensure the continued employment of preventive care workers for a minimum of three years after the completion of DES funding. We also sought further information from Mr. Bailey on the question of overlap between the work of other welfare agencies, teachers, and preventive care workers with regard to their role in pastoral care. Lastly, we had some concerns with regard to the plans for training of care workers prior to their going into schools.
The most important condition is the question of local authority funding. The others are matters of detail that could, one hopes, be resolved by further correspondence between the Department and Mr. Bailey. Indeed, Mr. Bailey has already been in touch with the Department spelling out how he believes the work of preventive care workers will relate to that of other welfare agencies and to the pastoral work of teaching staff in schools. He has provided us with much of the reassurance we require on this point. As I have suggested, however, the subject of funding direct from a local education authority is more of a problem.
Let me try to explain why that is such an important consideration for the Department. It follows from two elements of the proposals as submitted by Mr. Bailey. First, it has been presented as a pilot project, requiring DES funding for a limited period. By definition, a pilot project, if judged successful, is intended to form the basis of a longer-term exercise, normally on a much larger scale. There is no question of DES funding being available after the pilot project has been completed, so the finances for continued employment of preventive care workers would have to come from elsewhere.
Although Mr. Bailey continues to be extremely successful in securing private funding for his work, I am sure that he would be the first to acknowledge that his work cannot be totally reliant on private funds. That brings me on to the second element of the project, which is the need for relationships with young people to be built up over a period. To be able to form close relationships with youngsters, and to influence their long-term behaviour and development—

The motion having been made after Ten o'clock or Monday evening, and the debate having continued for half an hour, MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER adjourned the House without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.

Adjourned at five minutes past One o'clock.